🔍 Question Type

Inference / Interpretation of Response
We must determine what Ms. Siuzdak’s reply shows she understood or interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply.

🧩 Breakdown of Stimulus

Mr. Janeck:

“I don’t believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.”

• Premise: Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience.
• Conclusion: Stevenson will not win.
• Focus: Prediction about voter behavior (external perspective).

Ms. Siuzdak:

“You’re wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.”

• Focus: Candidate’s qualifications (internal capability).
• Interpretation: She believes Janeck’s statement implied Stevenson is unqualified, and she’s defending his qualifications.

Key Logical Gap:
Janeck predicts how voters will act, but Siuzdak interprets it as a claim about Stevenson’s ability.

🧠 Reasoning Approach

1. Identify each speaker’s focus:
   • Janeck → Voter behavior (prediction).
   • Siuzdak → Candidate’s competence (evaluation).
2. Spot the misinterpretation:
   • Siuzdak treats a prediction (“few voters are willing…”) as if it were a judgment (“Stevenson shouldn’t be elected”).
3. Eliminate answers that distort scope or exaggerate.
   • Correct answer must capture that Ms. Siuzdak took Janeck to be calling Stevenson unqualified.

📊 Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
✅ Correct.
Siuzdak’s response about the value of business experience makes sense only if she thought Janeck was doubting Stevenson’s fitness for office. This captures the exact misinterpretation.

(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
❌ Too absolute. Janeck said “few voters are willing,” not “none have ever been.” Historical claim = irrelevant exaggeration.

(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
❌ Opposite meaning. Siuzdak—not Janeck—draws that analogy to defend Stevenson.

(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one’s ability to run a state government fairly.
❌ Out of scope. Neither speaker mentions fairness or profit motives; the issue is experience, not morality.

(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.
❌ Irrelevant. That would critique voter judgment. Janeck merely predicts voter behavior without evaluating it.

✅ Correct Answer

(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
Ms. Siuzdak’s defense of business experience reveals she interpreted Janeck’s remark as an attack on Stevenson’s qualifications, not merely as a forecast about voters.

✨ Key Insights

1. Prediction vs. Evaluation Trap:
   When one speaker predicts what others will do, and the second replies by defending someone’s ability or character, the correct inference usually reflects a misinterpretation of prediction as evaluation.
2. Watch for Absolutes:
   GMAT wrong answers often exaggerate with “never,” “always,” or “no one,” which distort moderate statements like “few” or “most.”
3. Dialogue Precision:
   In dialogue questions, always map what is actually claimed vs. how the other speaker interprets it. The logic gap between them is the test-maker’s target.

✅ Final Answer: (A)