One quant and one verbal question will be posted each day starting on

Answer is B
(A) This talks about different positions, not difference between 2 different times.
(B) Because initial 4 star can be 3 or 5 star later so the average may not change. But with the 5 stars, it can only be reduced because the highest point achievable is 5.
(C) Difference among positions, not difference in their progress.
(D) Playing styles has nothing to do with a player's progress.
(E) Not relevant.

B

conclusion is only about high-end player so the solution should tackle with that.


A 5-star player can be rated at a lower star rating later on but never above a 5-star rating.

if even once the high-end player falters in getting a lower rating his avg rating can never match up with his high end rating if he ends his career as a high rated player.

This explains the issue!

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

A. This is out of scope because position is not mentioned in the passage and isn't relevant in this situation.
C. This doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the results prior to and after each career.
D. This is irrelevant as it would not pose a problem in the service's attempt at validating rankings.
E. This may be true, but does not identify any problem with the service's attempt to validate rankings.

CORRECT-
B. The cap at 5 stars hinders the initial assessment of players that are above that number which may leave a lot of players underrated and would pose a problem when the service attempts to determine their rankings.

Answer B
Stem:
1: Services rank players from 1 to 5
2: Player’s ranks averaged at the end and found that
5 rankers averaged to 4.46
4 rankers averaged to 3.98
3 rankers averaged to 3.11
Conclusion:
Rankings could not judge high end talent as well as it did the middle range talent.
(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions – Stem does not talk about positions

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
This option states that since a 5 star ranked player can never be ranked beyond 5, even if he plays better than he used to play when he was selected and there would be no room to compensate for his occasional weak performances. Since this option brings out the comparative flaw in the ranking this is the correct answer

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
– Stem does not talk about positions

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
– Stem does not talk about style of play

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates - strength training programs at different schools- not mentioned

Ans (C) - if players can be judged across various positions,then it could be possible that the number of players who all received 5 star / 4 star / 3 star rating initially will change during the post career ratings.

If so happened then the average of post career ratings will not give the correct rating figures for those players' initial ranking.

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates

Ans A: As it states the limitation of rating a player at younger age. Due to this as the people grow older their rating becomes more accurate while the people who were rated earlier were not accurate. So considering this people who were rated 5 before may not be actually 5. While with other ratings difficulty in rating may have both positive and negative consequence so they combine to neutralise and average out to be more uniform
B) They do not need to outperform just need to maintain
C) Different position has nothing to do with players rating.
4) irrelevant. We are not talking about different schools
5) irrelevant comparision

Winners:

igloo and rajathpanta

Official Explanation:

Answer is B

This problem demonstrates a type of data flaw that you might not expect – which is exactly what the author of a hard question wants, for you to accept a faulty conclusion because you did not critically examine the data. What’s the flaw here? In a five-point scale, a predicted ‘4’ has multiple outcomes: a 5 (exceeding expectations and bringing the group average up), a 4 (meeting expectations, keeping the average the same), or a 3 or below (underperforming the prediction, bringing the average down). But a predicted ‘5’ can only live up to expectations – it cannot exceed them. Anything other than a 5 brings the expected average down. So while the experts’ misevaluations of a 4-star prospect might be balanced out by some 5s to counter 3s, their evaluations of a 5-star prospect all count in the same downward direction. Choice B exposes this flaw – the experts may have missed just as often with 3 and 4 star players, but because they could miss on either side of the predicted value the average is close to what they predicted.For your study, this is important – especially with the Integrated Reasoning section included, the GMAT will feature plenty of problems in which statistics are used improperly, to draw invalid conclusions. Be skeptical of statistics and train yourself to look for data flaws, both on the GMAT and in business in general.

Hey nightblade354

Kindly mark the OA as B for this one.

__________________
Done. Thank you.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.