Last visit was: 22 May 2024, 18:53 It is currently 22 May 2024, 18:53

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2507
Own Kudos [?]: 3302 [1]
Given Kudos: 1051
GPA: 3.39
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28796
Own Kudos [?]: 33385 [0]
Given Kudos: 25270
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2024
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 124
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28796
Own Kudos [?]: 33385 [0]
Given Kudos: 25270
Send PM
Re: At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku [#permalink]
Expert Reply
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(1) Identify the Question
Since the question stem asks for the answer choice that undermines the prediction, the correct answer will make the conclusion less likely and this is a Weaken the Argument question.


(2) Deconstruct the Argument
Here is one possible way to map the argument.
A:100, S:80, B:32
After the deal, A:100, S:108, ?:4
Conclusion: S will win.

(3) State the Goal
On Weaken questions, the goal is to find an answer that makes the conclusion less likely. Select the choice that makes it less likely that Smolenski will assuredly win the nomination.


(4) Work From Wrong to Right


(A) Since the argument does not state that the political analysts have voting power, this choice is irrelevant, as their opinion does not make Smolenski’s nomination at the convention more or less likely.

(B) The argument establishes that four of Brown’s delegates did not switch to Smolinski. Some means at least one, but even if all four of these delegates switched to Akubar, Akubar would still have fewer votes.

(C) Since the argument does not indicate that such actions would result in the removal of voting rights, this choice is irrelevant, as it does not make Smolenski’s nomination less likely.

(D) CORRECT. If there were unpledged delegates, as this choice states, it would be numerically possible for Akubar to win if these unpledged delegates selected Akubar in the final vote. Thus, the conclusion that Smolenski was assured of victory is less likely.

(E) This choice is irrelevant. Whether delegates this year have previously served as delegates or not has no bearing on the outcome of the vote.­
Prep Club for GRE Bot
[#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Instructor
218 posts
GRE Instructor
1034 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne