Columnist: Polls can influence voters’ decisions, and they may distort

If few people are affected then it should be banned. But we are supposed to weaken this. So, this option cannot be the answer.

Correct option- C
Posted from my mobile device

A.

Conclusion: A ban on publishing polls during the week prior to an election only minimally impairs freedom of expression, and thus should be implemented.

Reasoning: Because people are influenced, distorts views... Also only minimally hampers freedom of speech.

But, as mentioned in A, if only few people, say 2 or 5, are influenced by poll in last two weeks, what good would banning the polls in last week do? Because probably most people were already influenced initially. Thus conclusion to ban polls "in last week" might be useless.

C is wrong cause it actually strengthens by supporting the evidence. If it reduces motivation in some people means it succeeded in influencing people, which we truly wanted to avoid in the first place

still not able to get how "C" is the strengthener. If polls effect people behavior, distort their mind of set. Than how "C" is strengthener.

Also conclusion is " polls before week do minimal damage and therefore, it should be implemented.

And choice "A" is saying only few people are affecting and there should be implemented.

Anyone please explain in detail.

jrk23 : To answer you please see below explanation.

A says only few are affected in last two weeks. Think about what the conclusion is in your own language. It says : Ban should be implemented "in the last week" because polls "influence" people, "distort " their views.


Note the timeline. Ban on polls is not for all time. It is only saying "in the last week". What about weeks before this last week? Think of it.

Now see what A says. It says, few people(1,2,3,... ) are influenced in last 2 weeks of polling. Translate in your language. Its simply saying that only 1,2,3, or "negligible" number of people are influenced in those last two weeks.

Imagine, I say people should stop eating pizza to reduce fat. But I say ban should only be in the week prior to Christmas. Why? Probably I am assuming that people eat pizza maximum in the week prior to Christmas?. So a potential weakener could weaken this assumption. Lets say, Only 1 or 2 persons eat pizza in last week. If this is true, my conclusion is a dead chicken. Because it simply says that even if I do implement the ban, its not gonna have the expected result as only "few" people actually eat pizza in the last week. That's same as option A. I hope you see it.

Now for C, it strengthens because if polls do really eliminate motivation of voters to vote, isn't it the same as influencing them? The whole passage is stating that because polls "influence people", "distort views" (such as, do not vote), we should implement a ban. Our job is not to question the premise. The premise that polls influence people is not to be questioned. Accept it as true. But option C "reinforces" the strength of the conclusion by strengthening the premise a further level.

Can someone clarify what "few" means. I eliminated A thinking that "few" can represent anything from 1% to 49% and hence even if it is 20% (example), it is a significant number. Went with E since that was the only other direct weakener.

Few means negligible number of people.

If only few people are influenced two weeks prior when compared to the influence one week prior. It suggests that one week prior we should ban because of its influence, hence it strengthen the columnist argument.

Please explain, thanks.

Notice that the choice doesn't say "two weeks prior to an election."

It says "during the two weeks immediately prior to an election."

The week just prior to an election is included in the time period "during the two weeks immediately prior to an election."

Thus, choice (A) indicates that "few people are influenced by the results of polls published" during the week just prior to an election,

I went with B because when publication of poll doesn't effect results there is no use of banning the poll. In A 'Few' means we can consider significant number . So eliminated A. please enlighten me if i am wrong

(B) is about only a subset of situations It's about situations in which there is "an uneven election race."

So, publication of poll results could still affect results in other situations, and thus (B) doesn't really weaken the argument.


"Few" in such a context actually means "only a small number."

So, (A) communicates that only a small number of people are influenced by poll results during the two weeks before an election, and thus weakens the argument for banning publishing results.

­MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja can you please comment on this and correct us on why exactly A isn't wrong? As I am also in this line of reasoning. 

There's no precise definition or limit, but "few" certainly does not mean "nearly half" (as in 40-50%).

If the passage said that "most" are NOT influenced by such polls, then sure, we'd have to assume that anywhere from 0 to 49% ARE influenced. But in this context, "few" suggests that we're talking about a relatively small number of people -- most likely too small to significantly impact the results of an election.

(E) is basically a big nothing-burger: "Countries in which such a ban is in effect do NOT generally have better informed citizens than do countries in which such a ban is not in effect." So it's possible that there's absolutely no relationship between having a ban and having well-informed citizens. And the argument has nothing to do with how "well-informed" the citizens are anyway, so (E) is completely irrelevant.

I hope that helps!­

­After taking out options, my remaining options are A & B, but I picked B because following reason

- A: It could have following implication, which makes me get rid this option after second consideration
-- If the poll published in the last week prior to the voting, it could affect more people's voting decisions due to being closer to the voting thus have a better momentum, therefore distort the result of the election more, meaning it strengthens the conclusion

- B: It could have two implications, which one which can weaken the argument
-- B1: If the voting result is uneven, the poll will not be published which "distortion of voting result" will not happen, thus weakening the argument
-- B2: If the voting result is even, the poll will be published which will distort voting result, thus strengthening the argument

Based on those thinking process, I picked B. Can someone please help to explain what part did I wrong in evaluating my answers? Thanks before­

The key on this is to be really, really careful when interpreting the meaning of answer choices.

(A) talks about the period during the final two weeks leading up to election. During this period includes the final week. So, according to (A), any polls published during this period will not have any bearing on the result of the election. That weakens the author's argument that we should ban such polls.

As for (B), take another look at the exct language of the answer choice:


In the scenario laid out by (B), the poll results could be published for any election race. It's just that this publication would not decide the winner in certain races (uneven ones, to be specific).

But what about even election races? If polls could decide the winner in THOSE races, that means that the polls are indeed distorting the outcome of some elections.

That's why (B) isn't a great weakener -- the author cares about ALL election races, and (B) just tells us that the polls don't matter for some races.

I hope that helps!­

Eliminated “A” because of voters to people generalisation.

Posted from my mobile device