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 GMAT 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.

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 04:09

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

77% (01:51) correct
23% (00:52) wrong based on 5 sessions

A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.

(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.

(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.

While I was working on this problem, i got stuck between A and E. The OA is E. Why is E better than A? In fact, I don't see how A can even weaken the argument cause I think A is strengthening the argument by confirming to the fact that indeed more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T. would someone explain? thanks

Re: CR: Newspapers Sold [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 04:17

tarek99 wrote:

A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T. Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.

(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.

(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.

While I was working on this problem, i got stuck between A and E. The OA is E. Why is E better than A? In fact, I don't see how A can even weaken the argument cause I think A is strengthening the argument by confirming to the fact that indeed more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T. would someone explain? thanks

E for me.

A. weakens the conclusion by saying that town S has larger population ex.

if 1 out of 100 is informed but the population is 1000 so only 100 pieces sold.
while in town T only 100 people live and 70 pieces sold

so not many people are informed about the events in S

E. just it is low price many buy it. but no weakening point

Re: CR: Newspapers Sold [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 04:45

tarek99 wrote:

A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T. Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.

(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.

(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.

While I was working on this problem, i got stuck between A and E. The OA is E. Why is E better than A? In fact, I don't see how A can even weaken the argument cause I think A is strengthening the argument by confirming to the fact that indeed more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T. would someone explain? thanks

E - because it is irrelevant. if it is talking about newsstands and its price.

I was also going for 'A', as usual committing blunders in CRs. But if I see newsstand that is completely out of scope, Isn’t it so??

I saw this one in the OG 10. Initially I was also confused between A and E.
It has been rightly explained in one of the earlier posts that why population size weakens the arguement.

In D, town S also has a local newspaper publication, but it does not mention whether people are buying that paper.

The OA explains that by reading local news, people will spend less time reading world news.

But, my argument is that reading local news does not mean ignoring world news, especially the statement does not mention anything about the average amount of time citizens of each town spend on reading the news.

In E, the price of the paper is cheaper in S than in T, and that is why it sold more in S (could be that people from T going to S to buy the paper). That would weaken the conclusion.

the OA is E, but my issue is with option A. Ravshonbek, I think your analysis here COULD be true, but I don't see how it MUST be true. know what i mean? although what you said could be true, what ALSO could be true is that more people buy newspapers. I see option A heading towards the strengthening side by confirming that more people are in town s, therefore more likely to purchase more newspapers. although what you said is a possibility, i don't think it must be absolutely certain. is this one of those questions with 2 remaining answer choices that don't weaken the argument but then we have to split them up by choosing one of them that is stronger and less weakening?

Re: CR: Newspapers Sold [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 22:52

A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

why not A,

lets use quick- simple analogy,

each apple contributes possitively to health. The more apples you eat the healthier you become.

Room A consumes 10 apples and room B consumes 15 apples, so people in Room B are healthier.-----> logically true, BUT what if,

There are 10 people in Room A and 30 people in Room B. This fact weakens the argument that people in Room B are healhier.

choice A, plus the passage, say that town S has greater NUMBER of people reading newspapers than does town T.

The fact that town S has greater NUMBER of people reading newspapers and thus greater NUMBER of informed people does not mean that they are BETTER informed than those in town T. Thus A weakens the argument.

tarek99 wrote:

While I was working on this problem, i got stuck between A and E. The OA is E. Why is E better than A? In fact, I don't see how A can even weaken the argument cause I think A is strengthening the argument by confirming to the fact that indeed more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T. would someone explain? thanks

Re: CR: Newspapers Sold [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 23:58

on the second thought....

what if the number of newspapers sold in town S is greater than the number of newspapers sold in town T by MORE than the population of town S is larger than that of town T ???

A becomes either neutral or even streightening ... thus A qualifies for a right answer to not lesser extent than does E.

In D, town S also has a local newspaper publication, but it does not mention whether people are buying that paper.

The OA explains that by reading local news, people will spend less time reading world news.

But, my argument is that reading local news does not mean ignoring world news, especially the statement does not mention anything about the average amount of time citizens of each town spend on reading the news.

In E, the price of the paper is cheaper in S than in T, and that is why it sold more in S (could be that people from T going to S to buy the paper). That would weaken the conclusion.

Text in red is true, but the thing is there is TRADE OFF between reading world news and local news. Lets say Town S in total reads 100 newspapers, then if 10 of the newspapers are about local news only 90 are about world news. The more newspapers with local news are read the less newspapers with world news are read. It is like market share...

Re: CR: Newspapers Sold [#permalink]
26 Dec 2007, 00:31

IrinaOK wrote:

A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

why not A,

lets use quick- simple analogy,

each apple contributes possitively to health. The more apples you eat the healthier you become.

Room A consumes 10 apples and room B consumes 15 apples, so people in Room B are healthier.-----> logically true, BUT what if,

There are 10 people in Room A and 30 people in Room B. This fact weakens the argument that people in Room B are healhier.

choice A, plus the passage, say that town S has greater NUMBER of people reading newspapers than does town T.

The fact that town S has greater NUMBER of people reading newspapers and thus greater NUMBER of informed people does not mean that they are BETTER informed than those in town T. Thus A weakens the argument.

tarek99 wrote:

While I was working on this problem, i got stuck between A and E. The OA is E. Why is E better than A? In fact, I don't see how A can even weaken the argument cause I think A is strengthening the argument by confirming to the fact that indeed more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T. would someone explain? thanks

please comment shall you wish, thank you

yeah but remember, option A never said that town s has a greater number of people READING the newspaper. it only said that the size of the population in town S is greater than that of town T. we don't know whether that bigger number is reading newspapers or anything else. we just know that they happen to exist. we don't know what this population is actually doing. same thing with option E. We only know that the prices went up, but are the people actually price sensitive or not? are they still actually buying and reading those papers or not? maybe people will stop reading such newspapers once the price goes up. hmm...very confusing 2 options.

you see, if only one of them apears as an answer choice, that choice will definitely be correct because both of them don't really weaken. But when TWO of them appear and BOTH don't weaken, i would have a hard time picking one because both seem neautral. are neautral answers more preferred than the logical opposites of the "except" questions?

went with E. My explanation
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:
(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.
If T has 10 people and 5 are buying newspaper so, ratio is 1:2 and S has 20 people and 10 are buying newspaper then also ratio is 1:2 but more newspapers are sold in S. Not affirm the conclusion (B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.
Weakens the conclusion (C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.
Weakens the conclusion (D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.
Irrelevant. Talking about Local Events (E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.
Price is less. Not weakening the conclusion

went with E. My explanation A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T. Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT: (A) Town S has a larger population than Town T. If T has 10 people and 5 are buying newspaper so, ratio is 1:2 and S has 20 people and 10 are buying newspaper then also ratio is 1:2 but more newspapers are sold in S. Not affirm the conclusion (B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there. Weakens the conclusion (C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T. Weakens the conclusion (D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S. Irrelevant. Talking about Local Events (E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T. Price is less. Not weakening the conclusion

hmm...ok, i think i understood where i went wrong. My mistake was that I looked at option A in complete isolation. I should've included the information given in the argument to the information given in option A. So in option A:
population in town S is greater than that of T, so an example here would be s=100 people while t=50 people
the argument also said that more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T, therefore, let's say that 11 newspapers were sold in town S while 10 newspapers were sold in town T. so when you make a fraction out of them, this is what it will look like:
percentage of people who read in town S= 11/100 = 11%
percentage of people who read in town T= 10/50 = 20%

so even if more people read in town S, the town's overall percentage of people who are better informed remains less than that of town T...is that clearer now for those who also had difficulty with this? i think this should make it clearer now.

important lesson here, never look at any answer choice in complete isolation. treat every answer choice as you would with the DS questions in the quant section. in either of the 2 statements in a DS question, you try to see how much more information you can extract from it and then add it to the information that you already have in hand from the question. always add the information you obtain from an answer choice to the information you were given in the question, or in this case, from the given argument.

Last edited by tarek99 on 27 Dec 2007, 02:23, edited 1 time in total.

went with E. My explanation A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T. Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT: (A) Town S has a larger population than Town T. If T has 10 people and 5 are buying newspaper so, ratio is 1:2 and S has 20 people and 10 are buying newspaper then also ratio is 1:2 but more newspapers are sold in S. Not affirm the conclusion (B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there. Weakens the conclusion (C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T. Weakens the conclusion (D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S. Irrelevant. Talking about Local Events (E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T. Price is less. Not weakening the conclusion

hmm...ok, i think i understood where i went wrong. My mistake was that I looked at option A in complete isolation. I should've included the information given in the argument to the information given in option A. So in option A: population in town S is greater than that of T, so an example here would be s=100 people while t=50 people the argument also said that more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T, therefore, let's say that 11 newspapers were sold in town S while 10 newspapers were sold in town T. so when you make a fraction out of them, this is what it will look like: percentage of people who read in town S= 11/100 = 11% percentage of people who read in town T= 10/50 = 20%

so even if more people read in town S, the town's overall percentage of people who are better informed remains less than that of town T...is that clearer now for those who also had difficulty with this? i think this should make it clearer now

went with E. My explanation A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T. Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT: (A) Town S has a larger population than Town T. If T has 10 people and 5 are buying newspaper so, ratio is 1:2 and S has 20 people and 10 are buying newspaper then also ratio is 1:2 but more newspapers are sold in S. Not affirm the conclusion (B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there. Weakens the conclusion (C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T. Weakens the conclusion (D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S. Irrelevant. Talking about Local Events (E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T. Price is less. Not weakening the conclusion

hmm...ok, i think i understood where i went wrong. My mistake was that I looked at option A in complete isolation. I should've included the information given in the argument to the information given in option A. So in option A: population in town S is greater than that of T, so an example here would be s=100 people while t=50 people the argument also said that more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T, therefore, let's say that 11 newspapers were sold in town S while 10 newspapers were sold in town T. so when you make a fraction out of them, this is what it will look like:

percentage of people who read in town S= 11/100 = 11% percentage of people who read in town T= 10/50 = 20%

so even if more people read in town S, the town's overall percentage of people who are better informed remains less than that of town T...is that clearer now for those who also had difficulty with this? i think this should make it clearer now.

important lesson here, never look at any answer choice in complete isolation. treat every answer choice as you would with the DS questions in the quant section. in either of the 2 statements in a DS question, you try to see how much more information you can extract from it and then add it to the information that you already have in hand from the question. always add the information you obtain from an answer choice to the information you were given in the question, or in this case, from the given argument.

OK. Here is detailed mathematical explanation why A qualifies for a right answer,

1- those who said so are absolutely right, we need to consider both the info in the passage and the info given in the answer choice:

from passage :
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T.
from answer choice A:
Town S has a larger population than Town T.

Does answer A weaken the conclusion?

1) YES, if there is ONE newspaper per AN individual (the assumption made by someone above)

3) NO, if the number of newspapers in S is greater than the number of newspaper in T by relatively more than the population of S is larger than population of T, for example:

# of people in S: 100
# newspapers in S: 20

# of people in T: 50
# newspapers in T: 10

S=20% T=20%

use the same approach as above and choose numbers consistent with both question and answer choice 'A', and boom !! A becomes a non weakening answer choice and thus A is right answer.

3) NO, if there are several newspapers per AN individual, for examle:

# of people in S: 100
# newspapers in S: 11 (all 11 people read)

# of people in T: 50
# newspapers in T: 10 (only 5 people read)

All 11 people read those 11 newspapers in S, and only 5 people read 10 newspapers in T. The question does not exclude this possibility.

if we use the same approach as someone above, we get new statistics:

S=11/100=11% T=5/50=10%

by using the same approach as above, and by excluding an assumption that there is ONE newspaper per a sitizen, A is made into right answer !?

AND - 'not affirming' does not mean weakening, thus in meaning it is equal to 'not weakening',

AND - the example in blue only says that GREATER NUMBER of sitizens are informed in town S, this does not mean they are BETTER unformed.

for example, there are countries that have GREATER number of informed people, but does that mean they are better informed? Quantity has little to do with quality..

went with E. My explanation A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T. Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT: (A) Town S has a larger population than Town T. If T has 10 people and 5 are buying newspaper so, ratio is 1:2 and S has 20 people and 10 are buying newspaper then also ratio is 1:2 but more newspapers are sold in S. Not affirm the conclusion (B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there. Weakens the conclusion (C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T. Weakens the conclusion (D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S. Irrelevant. Talking about Local Events (E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T. Price is less. Not weakening the conclusion

hmm...ok, i think i understood where i went wrong. My mistake was that I looked at option A in complete isolation. I should've included the information given in the argument to the information given in option A. So in option A: population in town S is greater than that of T, so an example here would be s=100 people while t=50 people the argument also said that more newspapers are sold in town S than in town T, therefore, let's say that 11 newspapers were sold in town S while 10 newspapers were sold in town T. so when you make a fraction out of them, this is what it will look like:

percentage of people who read in town S= 11/100 = 11% percentage of people who read in town T= 10/50 = 20%

so even if more people read in town S, the town's overall percentage of people who are better informed remains less than that of town T...is that clearer now for those who also had difficulty with this? i think this should make it clearer now.

important lesson here, never look at any answer choice in complete isolation. treat every answer choice as you would with the DS questions in the quant section. in either of the 2 statements in a DS question, you try to see how much more information you can extract from it and then add it to the information that you already have in hand from the question. always add the information you obtain from an answer choice to the information you were given in the question, or in this case, from the given argument.

OK. Here is detailed mathematical explanation why A qualifies for a right answer,

1- those who said so are absolutely right, we need to consider both the info in the passage and the info given in the answer choice:

from passage : A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. from answer choice A: Town S has a larger population than Town T.

Does answer A weaken the conclusion?

1) YES, if there is ONE newspaper per AN individual (the assumption made by someone above)

3) NO, if the number of newspapers in S is greater than the number of newspaper in T by relatively more than the population of S is larger than population of T, for example:

# of people in S: 100 # newspapers in S: 20

# of people in T: 50 # newspapers in T: 10

S=20% T=20%

use the same approach as above and choose numbers consistent with both question and answer choice 'A', and boom !! A becomes a non weakening answer choice and thus A is right answer.

3) NO, if there are several newspapers per AN individual, for examle:

# of people in S: 100 # newspapers in S: 11 (all 11 people read)

# of people in T: 50 # newspapers in T: 10 (only 5 people read)

All 11 people read those 11 newspapers in S, and only 5 people read 10 newspapers in T. The question does not exclude this possibility.

if we use the same approach as someone above, we get new statistics:

S=11/100=11% T=5/50=10%

by using the same approach as above, and by excluding an assumption that there is ONE newspaper per a sitizen, A is made into right answer !?

AND - 'not affirming' does not mean weakening, thus in meaning it is equal to 'not weakening',

AND - the example in blue only says that GREATER NUMBER of sitizens are informed in town S, this does not mean they are BETTER unformed.

for example, there are countries that have GREATER number of informed people, but does that mean they are better informed? Quantity has little to do with quality..

so is E still the only right answer?

I think the trick here is that if you are stuck between A and E, the correct answer MUST be a "water-tight" statement that leaves no room for any other possible interpretations. Imagine what kind of a nightmare the test makers will have to face if they allow such answers to be the correct answers. At least half of the test takers around the world can constantly dispute and force GMAC to adjust their scoring and etc on a daily basis! The best way GMAC can protect itself is by creating answer choices that are so "water-tight" that there is no way any individual can even try to dispute against such answers.

Now when you take a look at your explanation for option A, you were able to give it 2 possible scenarios. That already should be enough to disregard it. However, in option E, there is only ONE way you could interpretate it, and that interpretation doesn't show any sign of weakening at all. I think that's the way you have to look at it.

Treat the CR questions as you would treat the DS questions. In DS questions, you would never consider a statement that provides more than one possible answers. The correct statement in DS is the statement that leaves no room for any other possible answers, but only one. Approach the CR questions the same way.

I think the trick here is that if you are stuck between A and E, the correct answer MUST be a "water-tight" statement that leaves no room for any other possible interpretations. Imagine what kind of a nightmare the test makers will have to face if they allow such answers to be the correct answers. At least half of the test takers around the world can constantly dispute and force GMAC to adjust their scoring and etc on a daily basis! The best way GMAC can protect itself is by creating answer choices that are so "water-tight" that there is no way any individual can even try to dispute against such answers.

Now when you take a look at your explanation for option A, you were able to give it 2 possible scenarios. That already should be enough to disregard it. However, in option E, there is only ONE way you could interpretate it, and that interpretation doesn't show any sign of weakening at all. I think that's the way you have to look at it.

Treat the CR questions as you would treat the DS questions. In DS questions, you would never consider a statement that provides more than one possible answers. The correct statement in DS is the statement that leaves no room for any other possible answers, but only one. Approach the CR questions the same way.

I agree that E is more "water-tight" than A.

Thank you for patience and I really appreciate your comments (esp, txt in red).

you're welcome. i'm glad i could help. so when you start looking through any answer choice, begin by selecting the choices that are the "maybe" answers even if you you came across a choice that you think should be 100% correct. you should be able to end up with either 2 or 3 answer choices. Then from your remaining choices, select the most "water-tight" answer choice, which should be the correct answer. By doing so, you should be able to work much faster because you don't have to waste time analyzing every single choice to figure whether it's the correct answer.
hope that helps