NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 21:08 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 21:08
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11181
Own Kudos [?]: 31969 [0]
Given Kudos: 291
Send PM
Reviews Badge
The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   10 Jan 2016, 20:05
Expert Reply
Quote:
The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR) has shown that around the world, average incomes for people living below the poverty line has increased 6% during the last five years. However, average incomes for people living at or above the poverty line has increased 13.4% during this time. Thus, in real world terms, there has been no real improvement in the standard of living for the very poor.

Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument above?

A. GIPR considers the receipt of charitable donations to be a form of income.

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.

C. The number of people who are below the poverty line has increased by 7.2% over the last five years.

D. The cost of food in areas where there is great poverty has not changed much during the last five years.

E. Six years ago, GIPR instituted a program to provide clean drinking water to people living in poverty.


Hi,

lets see what the paragraph tells us..
the average income of those below poverty line has increased by 6% and others by 13.4%. Yet the standard of living has not improved.

what we have to do?
STRENGTHEN it..

What should come in the mind straightway....
If increase in income has not led to improvement in standard of living, then the only reason is this 6% has not offset the increase in prices in these 5 years..

lets see the OA..

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.
CORRECT but only because no other choice is better.
here it tells us that the prices of medicine have gone up by 6%, thus eating into the increase in income...
Only PROBLEM is we are just talking of one aspect of measuring standard of living,. it may be possible that everything else has become cheaper..
we go by what is avail

VeritasPrepKarishma and @VeritasPrep, the choice C has to be picked up only because of compulsion.
In reality, it cannot be said to strengthening it.

SOURCE given :- Veritasprep


Regards,
Chetan
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14831
Own Kudos [?]: 64941 [0]
Given Kudos: 427
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   10 Jan 2016, 23:00
Expert Reply
chetan2u wrote:
Quote:
The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR) has shown that around the world, average incomes for people living below the poverty line has increased 6% during the last five years. However, average incomes for people living at or above the poverty line has increased 13.4% during this time. Thus, in real world terms, there has been no real improvement in the standard of living for the very poor.

Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument above?

A. GIPR considers the receipt of charitable donations to be a form of income.

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.

C. The number of people who are below the poverty line has increased by 7.2% over the last five years.

D. The cost of food in areas where there is great poverty has not changed much during the last five years.

E. Six years ago, GIPR instituted a program to provide clean drinking water to people living in poverty.


Hi,

lets see what the paragraph tells us..
the average income of those below poverty line has increased by 6% and others by 13.4%. Yet the standard of living has not improved.

what we have to do?
STRENGTHEN it..

What should come in the mind straightway....
If increase in income has not led to improvement in standard of living, then the only reason is this 6% has not offset the increase in prices in these 5 years..

lets see the OA..

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.
CORRECT but only because no other choice is better.
here it tells us that the prices of medicine have gone up by 6%, thus eating into the increase in income...
Only PROBLEM is we are just talking of one aspect of measuring standard of living,. it may be possible that everything else has become cheaper..
we go by what is avail

VeritasPrepKarishma and @VeritasPrep, the choice C has to be picked up only because of compulsion.
In reality, it cannot be said to strengthening it.

SOURCE given :- Veritasprep


Regards,
Chetan


There is a critical point here that people forget and the question aims at helping them review that - an option that strengthens the conclusion makes it more probable that the conclusion is true. It DOES NOT necessarily prove the conclusion without doubt. There is a lot of external data that you could give to still prove the conclusion false. The conclusions of CR are not deductive logic conclusions (that they must hold). They are real world conclusions such that their validity can always be questioned with more non-conflicting data. An option strengthens the conclusion even when it increases the probability of the conclusion by a few points.

Premises:
Average incomes for people living below the poverty line has increased 6% during the last five years.
Average incomes for people living at or above the poverty line has increased 13.4% during this time.

Conclusion: Thus, in real world terms, there has been no real improvement in the standard of living for the very poor.

Note here that it doesn't matter how much the income of rich has increased. What matters is why the standard of living of poor has not increased inspite of the increase in income. Perhaps inflation has been at 6% or more and hence in real terms, an increase of 6% in income means nothing.

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.
This option tells us that cost of medicine has increased 6% so in one aspect inflation is 6%. It certainly strengthens the idea that there has been no improvement in the standard of living for the very poor. Does it prove it without doubt? Of course not. But then, we don't need to PROVE the conclusion. We only need to STRENGTHEN it.
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11181
Own Kudos [?]: 31969 [0]
Given Kudos: 291
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   11 Jan 2016, 00:07
Expert Reply
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
Quote:
The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR) has shown that around the world, average incomes for people living below the poverty line has increased 6% during the last five years. However, average incomes for people living at or above the poverty line has increased 13.4% during this time. Thus, in real world terms, there has been no real improvement in the standard of living for the very poor.

Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument above?

A. GIPR considers the receipt of charitable donations to be a form of income.

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.

C. The number of people who are below the poverty line has increased by 7.2% over the last five years.

D. The cost of food in areas where there is great poverty has not changed much during the last five years.

E. Six years ago, GIPR instituted a program to provide clean drinking water to people living in poverty.


Hi,

lets see what the paragraph tells us..
the average income of those below poverty line has increased by 6% and others by 13.4%. Yet the standard of living has not improved.

what we have to do?
STRENGTHEN it..

What should come in the mind straightway....
If increase in income has not led to improvement in standard of living, then the only reason is this 6% has not offset the increase in prices in these 5 years..

lets see the OA..

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.
CORRECT but only because no other choice is better.
here it tells us that the prices of medicine have gone up by 6%, thus eating into the increase in income...
Only PROBLEM is we are just talking of one aspect of measuring standard of living,. it may be possible that everything else has become cheaper..
we go by what is avail

VeritasPrepKarishma and @VeritasPrep, the choice C has to be picked up only because of compulsion.
In reality, it cannot be said to strengthening it.

SOURCE given :- Veritasprep


Regards,
Chetan


There is a critical point here that people forget and the question aims at helping them review that - an option that strengthens the conclusion makes it more probable that the conclusion is true. It DOES NOT necessarily prove the conclusion without doubt. There is a lot of external data that you could give to still prove the conclusion false. The conclusions of CR are not deductive logic conclusions (that they must hold). They are real world conclusions such that their validity can always be questioned with more non-conflicting data. An option strengthens the conclusion even when it increases the probability of the conclusion by a few points.

Premises:
Average incomes for people living below the poverty line has increased 6% during the last five years.
Average incomes for people living at or above the poverty line has increased 13.4% during this time.

Conclusion: Thus, in real world terms, there has been no real improvement in the standard of living for the very poor.

Note here that it doesn't matter how much the income of rich has increased. What matters is why the standard of living of poor has not increased inspite of the increase in income. Perhaps inflation has been at 6% or more and hence in real terms, an increase of 6% in income means nothing.

B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.
This option tells us that cost of medicine has increased 6% so in one aspect inflation is 6%. It certainly strengthens the idea that there has been no improvement in the standard of living for the very poor. Does it prove it without doubt? Of course not. But then, we don't need to PROVE the conclusion. We only need to STRENGTHEN it.




Hi,
the reasoning given is generally used to eliminate such wrong choices..
How do you know the price increase was not due to something that hits the pharma companies . Connecting with 'inflation' would generally be used as a trap to entice test taker to that wrong choice. But by giving this as a valid reason, we are legitimising the reasoning...

If for same Q, I give another reason..
A. there was a sharp increase in the crude prices during this period, having an effect on all the commodities.
B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.

Someone who has read this Q and convinced with reasoning would go for A.

and there in explanation for B would be..
B is a wrong choice, as it claims something on a fact, which does not amount to even one thousandth of total expenditure. the increase in medicine could be attributed to failure and closing of pharma companies or higher taxes by the government etc
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14831
Own Kudos [?]: 64941 [0]
Given Kudos: 427
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   11 Jan 2016, 03:33
Expert Reply
chetan2u wrote:

the reasoning given is generally used to eliminate such wrong choices..
How do you know the price increase was not due to something that hits the pharma companies . Connecting with 'inflation' would generally be used as a trap to entice test taker to that wrong choice. But by giving this as a valid reason, we are legitimising the reasoning...


I don't know the reason for the price increase and for that matter, I don't care either. All that matters to the poor is that the price has increased by 6%. The reason could be anything. Option (B) is one step in the direction of showing that inflation has been 6% - the reason for that could be anything. Whether the other steps follow or not, doesn't matter. I have to strengthen the position and option (B) does that.

chetan2u wrote:
If for same Q, I give another reason..
A. there was a sharp increase in the crude prices during this period, having an effect on all the commodities.
B. During the last five years, the cost of medicine for people living below the poverty line has increased 6%.

Someone who has read this Q and convinced with reasoning would go for A.

and there in explanation for B would be..
B is a wrong choice, as it claims something on a fact, which does not amount to even one thousandth of total expenditure. the increase in medicine could be attributed to failure and closing of pharma companies or higher taxes by the government etc


A hypothetical question with our hypothetical solution?

Note that you will not have two strengtheners in the options. Even if it seems like you do, one would be dicey and the other obviously clear. We always have to find the "most suitable" option.

Also, "there was a sharp increase in the crude prices during this period, having an effect on all the commodities." is not "obviously" better than option (B). The effect on the commodities could have been 0.5%. Perhaps the government controls the crude prices and absorbs shocks - who knows.

Point is, if something strengthens the position, it cannot be the trap answer.
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11181
Own Kudos [?]: 31969 [0]
Given Kudos: 291
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   11 Jan 2016, 05:03
Expert Reply
Will leave it after this, and will repost when I come across some Q testing this type of reasoning.
Quote:
I don't know the reason for the price increase and for that matter, I don't care either. All that matters to the poor is that the price has increased by 6%. The reason could be anything. Option (B) is one step in the direction of showing that inflation has been 6% - the reason for that could be anything. Whether the other steps follow or not, doesn't matter. I have to strengthen the position and option (B) does that.


Ofcourse, REASON for price increase is important, because that is what critical REASONing is all about. The answer solely hinges on the price increase in the period.
Quote:

A hypothetical question with our hypothetical solution?

the Q is from your source, so yes it can be hypothetical as it is not from the OG. Any solution to a hypothetical Q will be hypothetical. agreed

Quote:
Note that you will not have two strengtheners in the options. Even if it seems like you do, one would be dicey and the other obviously clear. We always have to find the "most suitable" option.

Also, "there was a sharp increase in the crude prices during this period, having an effect on all the commodities." is not "obviously" better than option (B). The effect on the commodities could have been 0.5%. Perhaps the government controls the crude prices and absorbs shocks - who knows.

Point is, if something strengthens the position, it cannot be the trap answer.


The reasoning given to negate the crude price increase is good, but it can be applied to the OA given and in a much better way.
"A sharp increase in crude prices resulting in increase in commodities" can be shot down , but 6% increase(reasons unknown-related to only itself or encompassing all) in a miniscule part of spending is correct because it matches 6% with 6% increase in income. 6% increase in medicine means 6% in food , 6% in transport, 6% in everything. I am sure it does not mean that
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14831
Own Kudos [?]: 64941 [0]
Given Kudos: 427
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   11 Jan 2016, 05:23
Expert Reply
Quote:

the Q is from your source, so yes it can be hypothetical as it is not from the OG. Any solution to a hypothetical Q will be hypothetical. agreed


I would like to point out that when you "add" an option to our question at your own will, it doesn't remain our question anymore.
All we try to do here is help - you are free to disagree with the logic.
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11181
Own Kudos [?]: 31969 [0]
Given Kudos: 291
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   11 Jan 2016, 05:39
Expert Reply
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Quote:

the Q is from your source, so yes it can be hypothetical as it is not from the OG. Any solution to a hypothetical Q will be hypothetical. agreed


I would like to point out that when you "add" an option to our question at your own will, it doesn't remain our question anymore.
All we try to do here is help - you are free to disagree with the logic.


I appreciate the efforts. But I will surely get back to you on the flawed reasoning through the most accepted source OG, as I am sure I have seen a few instances where Qs have used this reasoning to eliminate choices.

I would like to point to another one flaw, may like to review it.

.
Nevernevergiveup wrote:
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?
...

Hi,
the logic of the main statement itself is flawed..
The Q would have been better had it asked for "flaw in the logical reasoning"....

The logic in this Q is ..
all the As will have done B..
so since C is doing B, he will be A..
all the As will have done B.. does not mean all doing B will be As..

But taking the Q as it is, answer will be C..
For becoming a medallist .. it is necessary that many hours (requirement 1) of trg under elite coach (requirement 2)..
we know he has coached under elite coach..
so if he has to win a medal, he has to have trained for many hours..

It would be better if you change therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition. to micheal wins a medal in competition, to make the Questin logical
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14831
Own Kudos [?]: 64941 [0]
Given Kudos: 427
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   12 Jan 2016, 00:48
Expert Reply
chetan2u wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Quote:

the Q is from your source, so yes it can be hypothetical as it is not from the OG. Any solution to a hypothetical Q will be hypothetical. agreed


I would like to point out that when you "add" an option to our question at your own will, it doesn't remain our question anymore.
All we try to do here is help - you are free to disagree with the logic.


I appreciate the efforts. But I will surely get back to you on the flawed reasoning through the most accepted source OG, as I am sure I have seen a few instances where Qs have used this reasoning to eliminate choices.

I would like to point to another one flaw, may like to review it.

.
Nevernevergiveup wrote:
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?
...

Hi,
the logic of the main statement itself is flawed..
The Q would have been better had it asked for "flaw in the logical reasoning"....

The logic in this Q is ..
all the As will have done B..
so since C is doing B, he will be A..
all the As will have done B.. does not mean all doing B will be As..

But taking the Q as it is, answer will be C..
For becoming a medallist .. it is necessary that many hours (requirement 1) of trg under elite coach (requirement 2)..
we know he has coached under elite coach..
so if he has to win a medal, he has to have trained for many hours..

It would be better if you change therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition. to micheal wins a medal in competition, to make the Questin logical


Dear chetan2u,

From the experience of our previous discussion, I think you have already made up your mind that these questions are flawed (which, by the way, they are not). I don't think I will be able to make much difference this time around either so I will not write out an explanation here. Instead, I will take this question on my 'Quarter Wit Quarter Wisdom' blog next week. I will put up the link on this thread - feel free to check it out on Monday.
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11181
Own Kudos [?]: 31969 [0]
Given Kudos: 291
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   12 Jan 2016, 01:35
Expert Reply
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Dear chetan2u,

From the experience of our previous discussion, I think you have already made up your mind that these questions are flawed (which, by the way, they are not). I don't think I will be able to make much difference this time around either so I will not write out an explanation here. Instead, I will take this question on my 'Quarter Wit Quarter Wisdom' blog next week. I will put up the link on this thread - feel free to check it out on Monday.


Hi karishma,
Thank you for the efforts. I would surely go through the explanations and its, in no way trying to find a flaw because I have done a lot of CR from your source and they have been perfectly fine.
Regards....
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11181
Own Kudos [?]: 31969 [0]
Given Kudos: 291
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink] New post   18 Jan 2016, 22:49
Expert Reply
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
chetan2u wrote:
I appreciate the efforts. But I will surely get back to you on the flawed reasoning through the most accepted source OG, as I am sure I have seen a few instances where Qs have used this reasoning to eliminate choices.

I would like to point to another one flaw, may like to review it.

.
Nevernevergiveup wrote:
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?
...

Hi,
the logic of the main statement itself is flawed..
The Q would have been better had it asked for "flaw in the logical reasoning"....

The logic in this Q is ..
all the As will have done B..
so since C is doing B, he will be A..
all the As will have done B.. does not mean all doing B will be As..

But taking the Q as it is, answer will be C..
For becoming a medallist .. it is necessary that many hours (requirement 1) of trg under elite coach (requirement 2)..
we know he has coached under elite coach..
so if he has to win a medal, he has to have trained for many hours..

It would be better if you change therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition. to micheal wins a medal in competition, to make the Questin logical


Dear chetan2u,

Quote:
From the experience of our previous discussion, I think you have already made up your mind that these questions are flawed (which, by the way, they are not). I don't think I will be able to make much difference this time around either so I will not write out an explanation here. Instead, I will take this question on my 'Quarter Wit Quarter Wisdom' blog next week. I will put up the link on this thread - feel free to check it out on Monday.


Hi,
I did go through your blog..
two points from your blog..
1) the answer as C flows through the argument..
2) the argument is flawed in its conclusion..

These are exactly the two points I conveyed, points which you felt were biased.
Also, I do know and would expect others too not to sweat on flawed arguements, which would be a rarity in actual GMAT, but carry on with the Qs..
Thanks..
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: The latest report by the Global Initiative for Poverty Reduction (GIPR [#permalink]
18 Jan 2016, 22:49

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions