Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 26 Aug 2016, 20:46
GMAT Club Tests

Close

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
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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 915
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 600 [3] , given: 322

Premium Member
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jan 2013, 21:48
3
This post received
KUDOS
25
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

18% (03:10) correct 82% (02:17) wrong based on 1002 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

Anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet, because all the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates.

A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

Source: Veritas Prep Quiz
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Veritas Prep GMAT Discount CodesOptimus Prep Discount CodesEconomist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2994
Followers: 714

Kudos [?]: 5742 [0], given: 971

Re: Research has shown that impoverished people [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2013, 09:27
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 915
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 600 [0], given: 322

Premium Member
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2013, 10:18
carcass wrote:
I pick E but the answer is D

do you provide OE ??

Thanks



Hi carcass ,

I did many quizzes in the last 3 days so struggling to find OE , once I will find it I 'll post it.
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

1 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2994
Followers: 714

Kudos [?]: 5742 [1] , given: 971

Re: Research has shown that impoverished people [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jan 2013, 10:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
targetgmatchotu wrote:
carcass wrote:
I pick E but the answer is D

do you provide OE ??

Thanks



Hi carcass ,

I did many quizzes in the last 3 days so struggling to find OE , once I will find it I 'll post it.



It's ok ;)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [3] , given: 3

Re: Research has shown that impoverished people [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2013, 15:51
3
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9237
Followers: 803

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2014, 02:56
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.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9237
Followers: 803

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2015, 03:43
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 26
Concentration: Technology, Finance
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 344

Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 20:17
Quote:
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

Anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet, because all the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates.

A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

I was able to narrow down to B and D.
STEM:-
Cause --> Effect
Poverty --> Unhealthy food

&

~Effect --> ~Cause
Improved quality of food (moving from unhealthy to healthy food) --> Coming out of poverty

Option D:-
Since it is in passive it can rephrased as:-
All the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates. Therefore anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet.

Cause --> Effect
Banks that use of internet to run ads about low rates --> investigated for banking procedures (unsecured loans)

~Effect --> ~Cause
Secured loans --> Avoid banks that use internet to advertise

Pretty tough question.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 495
Location: United States (LA)
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GRE 1: 328 Q167 V161
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 203

Reviews Badge
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2016, 13:06
there appears to be initial state of confusion between option D and E, but after a through reading the answer is actually option D
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2016
Posts: 22
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 111

Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2016, 14:24
skiingforthewknds wrote:
Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.



This is one hard question! I still do not fully understand the explanation, is there any expert willing to help out?
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2016
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 2

Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2016, 23:15
1
This post received
KUDOS
skiingforthewknds wrote:
Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.


Actually I find the "Correct answer D" is NOT parallel to the reasoning line of the argument in the stem.

I agree with the OE that the reasoning line of the stem is:
∵ A leads to B ∴ not A leads to not B which is illogical, of course.

BUT, let's look at choice D:
Anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet, because all the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates.

Premise: all the BAD banks use Internet ads
Conclusion: avoiding all the banks using Internet ads, can make people avoid all bad banks.

Think it thoroughly, D is actually logical and well-founded. Suppose there are ABCDEF 6 banks in the market, ABC are the 3 bad guys (which according to the premise all use Internet ads) and two good guys, DE, also use the Internet ads. By avoiding all the banks that advertise on the Internet, people of course can successfully avoid all the bad guys. So this answer choice is flawless in reasoning.
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country   [#permalink] 11 Aug 2016, 23:15
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic Recent research has shown that when calculators are allowed into Harley1980 1 21 Sep 2015, 05:48
10 Experts publish their posts in the topic #Top150 CR - Research has shown that impoverished people souvik101990 11 19 Sep 2015, 23:47
7 Extensive archaeological research has shown that male crusaders killed Harley1980 11 30 Aug 2015, 14:53
1 Psychiatric research has shown that receiving high-quality goodyear2013 1 05 Jul 2014, 02:14
49 Experts publish their posts in the topic Recent research has indicated that married people are not bsd_lover 38 30 May 2008, 19:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.