Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 23:24

### GMAT 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3089
Followers: 783

Kudos [?]: 6518 [1] , given: 1008

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2013, 01:50
1
KUDOS
I did this question too at 3 AM and damn it: it was really tough and ackward. I' d expect these sort of question during the exam. nasty

At the end of the day: if the number of radio increased and the receiving programs more or less are the same, then the same programs do not reach the entire number of radios.

This is the gist of the argument. People are stressed out on words such as : few if any (clearly means 1 or zero, in a nutshell) losing focus on what really the argument is.

Gmat is really crazy
_________________
Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2013, 08:22
(Reference is made to explanation given by Karishma ). Further analysis of option 'A' & 'D'.

'A' can be proved wrong

Total no of RDS radio sets in Verdland= 100.Two counties X & Y in Verdland, where the no of RDS radio sets(no of people owing it) are 20 & 80 respectively. Only County 'X' people receive the RDS Broadcast. If people at 'Y' did not receive the RDS Broadcast earlier but now start receiving the Broadcast signal due to what option 'A' states, the increase in no(by 80) of people receiving RDS program is significant in contradiction to the conclusion.
We simply dont know how many RDS radio sets are available (out of the total in the town) at a place where there was no RDS Broadcast earlier.

Whereas option 'D' cannot be proved wrong. It has to be true even if it sounds too simplistic (Even after discounting any other modifications/ways of receiving RDS Broadcast)

The bottom line is :- No of people receiving the broadcast and not the No of programs received by people. The increase in the No of RDS Radio station broadcasting has no bearing on the no of people receiving the Broadcast, given the above scenario.

Therefore option 'D' seems more plausible.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 291

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2013, 01:35
one up for A. The answer choices are very confusing. It's important not to lose focus.
Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2013, 20:20
I just want to point out choice D talks about all radio programming. The conclusion only discusses special programming. Hopefully that should make it quicker and easier
Current Student
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 23
Location: United States (WA)
Schools: Foster '18 (M)
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GPA: 3.65
WE: Military Officer (Military & Defense)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2013, 07:07
I was slow on this (4 min), but the answer should be A.

1) ID question type: Find the Assumption.
2) Deconstruct the Argument:

- '94 to '96: RDS stations increase from 250 to 600.
- # of RDS radios in the the country same in '96 as '94.
- Conclusion: # of People in country who receive RDS signals did not increase.

Logic gaps in the argument: Just because someone owns an RDS radio doesn't mean he can receive the signal (maybe he's not in range of a station?). If he was out of range of a station in 1994 with an RDS radio living in the outback wilderness, but all of a sudden in 1996 a new station pops up on a mountain top nearby, then he would be able to listen. So we need to find something that assures us that all RDS owners in '94 had reception and can listen to RDS stations.

3) Remind yourself of the goal: Find the Assumption Question type.

4) Wrong from wrong to right (process of elimination):

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

- Here I'm thinking that this one could be good. It's saying that few NEW stations built after 1994 were built in NEW areas...so that means that RDS coverage remains about the same in the country. It answers our logic gap above. I'll leave this one and analyze my other choices.

b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

- This isn't really providing us with any important information to bridge the logic gap. In 1996, people in range can listen. Whoopty-do. Eliminate B.

c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.

- So range doesn't change when a station has RDS technology. This doesn't matter as we are trying to bullet-proof our argument against whether or not the NEW stations reached NEW listeners. It doesn't deal with the new stations being built. Eliminate C.

d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Is this really telling us anything new? We already know that people without special RDS radios can't receive RDS signals. Eliminate D.

e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.
- Irrelevant. Who cares what they broadcast? It has nothing to do with reaching new listeners. Eliminate E.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10529
Followers: 918

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Dec 2014, 13:56
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.
Current Student
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 128
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q51 V27
GMAT 3: 680 Q50 V31
GMAT 4: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 5: 760 Q50 V42
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2015, 01:46
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?)
The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then may not have changed. So the argument could still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.

(At Veritas, we call this method Assumption Negation Technique (ANT). Assumption is something which needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. That is why it is called an assumption. If an option is negated and the conclusion could still hold, it is not an assumption)

On the other hand, if we negate option (A) and say that some RDS radio stations started broadcasting in areas which were not previously reached by RDS but where people owned RDS equipped radios, then the number of people receiving RDS increases in 1996 and the conclusion does not hold. Hence option (A) is the assumption.

I'm sorry for excavated this topic. But I want be clarified more what D is incorrect.
As you explained "they could have done the same in 1994 as well". However, the choice said "after 1994". A possible scenerio could be:
- In 1994, 200.000 Verlanders got these programs because all of them had RDS equipped radios;
- After 1994, 50.000 more Verlanders somehow got these programs even though they did't have RDS equipped radios (maybe by installing a software as you supposed).
- If this is the case, then the argment would not hold anymore.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In addition, I was confused by the word "any programs" in choice D and "special programs" in the argument. If "any programs" include special programs and other non-special programs, then D is possibly incorrect because when it is negated, the argument could still hold because 50.000 more Verlanders above could receive the non-special programs.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7119
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2132

Kudos [?]: 13631 [0], given: 222

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2015, 22:16
tronghieu1987 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?)
The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then may not have changed. So the argument could still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.

(At Veritas, we call this method Assumption Negation Technique (ANT). Assumption is something which needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. That is why it is called an assumption. If an option is negated and the conclusion could still hold, it is not an assumption)

On the other hand, if we negate option (A) and say that some RDS radio stations started broadcasting in areas which were not previously reached by RDS but where people owned RDS equipped radios, then the number of people receiving RDS increases in 1996 and the conclusion does not hold. Hence option (A) is the assumption.

I'm sorry for excavated this topic. But I want be clarified more what D is incorrect.
As you explained "they could have done the same in 1994 as well". However, the choice said "after 1994". A possible scenerio could be:
- In 1994, 200.000 Verlanders got these programs because all of them had RDS equipped radios;
- After 1994, 50.000 more Verlanders somehow got these programs even though they did't have RDS equipped radios (maybe by installing a software as you supposed).
- If this is the case, then the argment would not hold anymore.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In addition, I was confused by the word "any programs" in choice D and "special programs" in the argument. If "any programs" include special programs and other non-special programs, then D is possibly incorrect because when it is negated, the argument could still hold because 50.000 more Verlanders above could receive the non-special programs.

"Special programming" is "RDS programming" i.e. programs from RDS stations. This is the same as "any programming from the RDS radio stations"

The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?) If (D) is false but the argument COULD still hold, then (D) is not an assumption. You have to look for ways in which the argument CAN HOLD. Not the ways in which the argument can be made false.

The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then MAY NOT have changed. So the argument COULD still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7119 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2132 Kudos [?]: 13631 [0], given: 222 Re: Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology [#permalink] ### Show Tags 28 Aug 2015, 19:47 jaituteja wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: piyushagarwal wrote: I am not at all able to make out what A want to say.. Since this questions seems to have confused people, let's try to break it down. Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. None of the other choices qualify as an assumption. Hi Karishma, I have a doubt and need clarity... "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly". "increase significantly".. Does it mean that the "the number of Verlanders receiving program information were same in 1996 as in 1994" or "there was an increase, but not to the same percentage/level as that of RDS radio stations(250 to 600)". It means there was no "significant increase". If there was an increase, it was what you would expect in the normal course of things. For example, the number of people watching channel A varies from 10 million to 10.5 million from time to time. Last Feb, data showed that 10.3 million people were regulars. A new set of programs were introduced in March. Till July, there was no significant increase. It mean that in July the numbers might have been 10.4 or 10.5 but nothing that we could say happened because of the new set of programs. It implies it was not out of the ordinary and that the programs did not have any/much effect. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 13 Jun 2016
Posts: 135
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 424

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2016, 10:57
I was between answer choice C and E.

C doesn't have to be true. It could have stayed the same and the argument will still hold. Therefore, C goes too far.
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 170
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2017, 05:10
Dear experts,
I read lots of posts about option D for this case, but my confusion has not sorted out.

First, my confusion is the conclusion that the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. I am not sure whether only I have this problem as below.
my doubt is the number of people receiving. The argument does state radio with an RDS feature can receive from those radio station with RDS , but does not state how people receive. for example, if 4 people are round the a radio with RDS , then 4 people can receive, if 400 people are round the same radio, then 400 people receive , right?
therefore, I think it is a big gap between the number of people receiving and the radio with RDS,
I did not negate D, (I am so poor at negating), when I read D, I get that people who have no RDS radio can not receive, so it eliminate my concern above. in other words , those who have no RDS radio won't get the access to special information through other methods, such as go to their friend who have RDS radios.
that's why I picked up D.

Review A, the core is radio station cannot early reach by RDS station, I think that it destroy the premise "radio with RDS is the only way to receive the special program information." whenever we meet CR, we accept the premises from the prompts, that's why I cross off A.

this question does confused me a lot. although I read lots of posts.

have a nice day

>_~
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3699
Followers: 1292

Kudos [?]: 5841 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2017, 15:00
zoezhuyan wrote:
Dear experts,
I read lots of posts about option D for this case, but my confusion has not sorted out.

First, my confusion is the conclusion that the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. I am not sure whether only I have this problem as below.
my doubt is the number of people receiving. The argument does state radio with an RDS feature can receive from those radio station with RDS , but does not state how people receive. for example, if 4 people are round the a radio with RDS , then 4 people can receive, if 400 people are round the same radio, then 400 people receive , right?
therefore, I think it is a big gap between the number of people receiving and the radio with RDS,
I did not negate D, (I am so poor at negating), when I read D, I get that people who have no RDS radio can not receive, so it eliminate my concern above. in other words , those who have no RDS radio won't get the access to special information through other methods, such as go to their friend who have RDS radios.
that's why I picked up D.

Review A, the core is radio station cannot early reach by RDS station, I think that it destroy the premise "radio with RDS is the only way to receive the special program information." whenever we meet CR, we accept the premises from the prompts, that's why I cross off A.

this question does confused me a lot. although I read lots of posts.

have a nice day

>_~

Dear zoezhuyan
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, you are confused about a few things in this question. First of all, I want to teach you a pair of technical logical words, to highlight one of your misunderstandings. These are the words "necessary" and "sufficient." One way to say it is as follows:
"A is necessary for B." Here we know that if A doesn't happen, then B would not happen. If A doesn't happen, then it may or may not be true that B can happen.
For example, A might be "car has gasoline" and B might be "car is able to transport someone." It's absolutely true that if a car does not have any gas, it will not go anywhere. If the car has gas, it may be operational, or there many be any one of a host of other automotive difficulties that prevent it from going anywhere.
The word "sufficient" summaries the opposite relationship.
"A is sufficient for B." This means that if A happens, we know that B must be true; in other words, A is a guarantee for B. If A doesn't happen, then B may or may not be true. For example, here, A could "car is able to transport someone" and B would be "car has gasoline." If I drive the car from one place to the next, it is guaranteed that at least during the time I was driving, the car had gas. On the other hand, if I can't even turn the car on, it may be out of gas, or it may have another problem.
Overall, we can that "having gas" is necessary but not sufficient for a car to be able to travel.

Your point about many people listening to a single radio is interesting. There aren't many real world scenarios, at least in the more developed countries, in which a large number of people regularly listen to a single radio. Also, typically, such places would be constructed specifically for that purpose: it would be quite unusual if a place were created that could accommodate 400 listeners, but at first, only four listeners were using it. No one constructs a big space if it looks as if only a handful of people are likely to use it.

Choice (D) is particularly interesting, because it is absolutely something that must be true, based on the statements in the prompt. If the prompt question had been, "If the statements above are true, which of the following also must be true," then (D) would be the correct answer. It's the correct answer for the wrong question. It doesn't answer the question that actually was asked: "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?" We can't really use negating to eliminate (D), because it has to be true given that the prompt statements are true. It's something true that must be true, based on the prompt, but it is not an assumption because it doesn't help link the premises to the conclusion.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 170
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2017, 19:08
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
mikemcgarry wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Dear experts,
I read lots of posts about option D for this case, but my confusion has not sorted out.

First, my confusion is the conclusion that the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. I am not sure whether only I have this problem as below.
my doubt is the number of people receiving. The argument does state radio with an RDS feature can receive from those radio station with RDS , but does not state how people receive. for example, if 4 people are round the a radio with RDS , then 4 people can receive, if 400 people are round the same radio, then 400 people receive , right?
therefore, I think it is a big gap between the number of people receiving and the radio with RDS,
I did not negate D, (I am so poor at negating), when I read D, I get that people who have no RDS radio can not receive, so it eliminate my concern above. in other words , those who have no RDS radio won't get the access to special information through other methods, such as go to their friend who have RDS radios.
that's why I picked up D.

Review A, the core is radio station cannot early reach by RDS station, I think that it destroy the premise "radio with RDS is the only way to receive the special program information." whenever we meet CR, we accept the premises from the prompts, that's why I cross off A.

this question does confused me a lot. although I read lots of posts.

have a nice day

>_~

Dear zoezhuyan
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, you are confused about a few things in this question. First of all, I want to teach you a pair of technical logical words, to highlight one of your misunderstandings. These are the words "necessary" and "sufficient." One way to say it is as follows:
"A is necessary for B." Here we know that if A doesn't happen, then B would not happen. If A doesn't happen, then it may or may not be true that B can happen.
For example, A might be "car has gasoline" and B might be "car is able to transport someone." It's absolutely true that if a car does not have any gas, it will not go anywhere. If the car has gas, it may be operational, or there many be any one of a host of other automotive difficulties that prevent it from going anywhere.
The word "sufficient" summaries the opposite relationship.
"A is sufficient for B." This means that if A happens, we know that B must be true; in other words, A is a guarantee for B. If A doesn't happen, then B may or may not be true. For example, here, A could "car is able to transport someone" and B would be "car has gasoline." If I drive the car from one place to the next, it is guaranteed that at least during the time I was driving, the car had gas. On the other hand, if I can't even turn the car on, it may be out of gas, or it may have another problem.
Overall, we can that "having gas" is necessary but not sufficient for a car to be able to travel.

Your point about many people listening to a single radio is interesting. There aren't many real world scenarios, at least in the more developed countries, in which a large number of people regularly listen to a single radio. Also, typically, such places would be constructed specifically for that purpose: it would be quite unusual if a place were created that could accommodate 400 listeners, but at first, only four listeners were using it. No one constructs a big space if it looks as if only a handful of people are likely to use it.

Choice (D) is particularly interesting, because it is absolutely something that must be true, based on the statements in the prompt. If the prompt question had been, "If the statements above are true, which of the following also must be true," then (D) would be the correct answer. It's the correct answer for the wrong question. It doesn't answer the question that actually was asked: "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?" We can't really use negating to eliminate (D), because it has to be true given that the prompt statements are true. It's something true that must be true, based on the prompt, but it is not an assumption because it doesn't help link the premises to the conclusion.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mikemcgarry,
so happy to get reply from you, your explanation is sooooo crystal , it makes me relax suddenly, very helpful.

after reading, I review my poor performance at CR, I realized two problems caused my poor performance, one is my English interpretation, you suggested earlier, and my worse approach , which makes me feel CR is so rough.

as so far, I get there is a new method -- sufficient and necessary -- to sort out some CR questions.

thanks so much..

have a nice day
>_~
Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 159
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2017, 20:33
Here is a slightly different take -

The question stem states "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly". Pay attention to the last phrase "did not increase significantly". This hints me that there was a super slight increase in the number of people receiving from RDS radio stations.

That super slight increase comes from, as pointed by a few above, the "few if any" in (A).

Although I answered it wrong, re-reading the question built my train of thought.

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
16 Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology 15 14 Nov 2012, 18:54
13 Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology 6 21 Aug 2012, 23:31
3 Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology 9 06 Sep 2010, 23:21
20 Radio Stations with radio data system (RDS) technolodgy 39 16 Jun 2008, 03:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by