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

It is currently 19 Oct 2014, 20:58

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

This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR.

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 280
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

Caution [#permalink] New post 15 May 2006, 06:15
In my opinion, we have to be very cautios with this kind of questions.

In my opinion, at first sight the option A would be the right answer.

Nevertheless, if we think deeply in option D, it is the correct answer because of the explanation that is on the top of this post.

So we have to be very cautious reading the CR at first sight, because it is likely that we mistake the answer at first sight.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 56
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2006, 14:12
HongHu wrote:
Assumption is something you need for you to draw your conclusion. Inference is a judgement that you draw from existing facts.


Another explanation : Assumption is a bridge between evidence and conclusion. It supports the conclusion.

Where as inference can be drawn out from the facts and the passage supports the inference.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 352
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2006, 20:12
Can someone explain what an argument is?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2006, 22:03
Option D has a flaw in it.
What do we mean by "significant number" of retirees moving to another state?

Lets say, initially there were 1000 retirees out of which 10%, ie. 100 retirees have moved to Florida and 900 others to another state.

Now, if there are 1300 retirees, out of which 7% (decrease by 3 percentage points) , ie. 91 have moved to Florida and 1201 to rest of the US.

From 900 to 1201 we see a significant increase in the retirees moving to rest of the US. ( Will significant increase mean only doubling or more than that?) At the same time, Florida has lesser number of retirees than it has before.

So, How can option D weaken the statement?

Pls help me with the right option.
_________________

IF U HAVE TO DO IT, DO IT.

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2006, 21:45
You can always argue about the significance of "significant"; Compare C with D, however, you can see that D is more related to the argument in the fashion of evidence-conclusion.

Thus D is correct here. C also weakens it, but it drifts further from the logic of the argument than D does.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Post MBA, working in the area of Development Finance
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 170
Location: Africa
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 19 Oct 2006, 23:59
ATLiens073 wrote:
Answer is D

A is wrong because they are talking Florida has more number of people coming in than any other state.. this matter is irrelevant since we are talking about the percentage drop in the number of people coming to florida. Note, you can still have a percentage drop in population coming into florida and still have a greater number of people coming into Florida than any other state. So A does not weaken the argument as much as D.


I completely agree. The only logical statement weakening the argument is D.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 352
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 29 Nov 2006, 20:32
I agree w/ D. It indeed says that the total number of people who move to other states when they retire is larger, so even if from a % point of view, such number has decreased for Florida, in absolute numbers it has increased.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 529
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 13 Apr 2007, 20:05
Taku wrote:
Like Prema, I thought (A) is the right answer, but see (D) is the best one.

However, can somebody help me to better understand why A is not correct? Is A a wrong anser, or just not better than (D)?

I see some explanation adding "over past ten years", but don't really find a reason to justify A is not correct. Thank you.



Though I am late in my explanation, I will nevertheless answer.

A says " Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state" Which implies that out of total number of people who retire and move to another state , Florida has larger share. This in no way is clear what is the proportion of those retirees coming to Florida. hence A is not sufficient. I think this is one of the greater traps.
D is the correct answer. Because if the total number of retirees has increased significantly, then the 3% figure does not mean the number of retirees in Florida is reduced and hence there is no loss to Local businesses. Hence D weakens the statement properly.

Thanks.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2007, 23:35
Yes D is clearly the right answer.

There is another percentage-based CR from OG 11 that has me confused. It is the sample question # 81 on page 491 of OG 11. The explanation provided is not quite clear and convincing to me.

Does anyone care to discuss this question?
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 15 Apr 2007, 08:48
rakesh.id wrote:
Yes D is clearly the right answer.

There is another percentage-based CR from OG 11 that has me confused. It is the sample question # 81 on page 491 of OG 11. The explanation provided is not quite clear and convincing to me.

Does anyone care to discuss this question?


Though the OG problem deals with % it's not in the same league as the problem being discussed in this thread - The percentage trap is applicable where fluctuations in percentages are used as a decoy to hide real facts - for ex while the percentage of retirees to florida dropped the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of retirees actually went up; eventually, so long as the absolute number keeps increasing - the business profitability would not take a hit.

Returning to the OG example - the percentages are used to show that radar equipped cars though a minority vis-a-vis non-radar equipped cars constitute a significantly higher percentage of ticketed cars - this makes the author conclude that drivers of radar equipped cars are likely to exceed the speed limit regularly... how can this be concluded UNLESS we assume that those who are ticketed once are more likely to be ticketed again - which is stated in B and hence the correct answer.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 15 Apr 2007, 10:11
Thanks for clarifying, dwivedy! :)
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 15 Apr 2007, 10:12
Thanks for clarifying, dwivedy! :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 326
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 17 Apr 2007, 05:38
Keep up the good work

Javed.

Cheers!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 20 Apr 2007, 21:40
This is really a good post giving good insight into CR strategies...
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 04 Jun 2007, 05:01
jksingh21 wrote:
In my opion C is not correct due to following reason:

C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

This statement does not weaken or strengthen author's claim of impact on "local businesses in Florida cater to retirees" and hence not an option.

Even though there are less businesses that cater to retirees (than tourists), it does not mean that they will not feel the impact if there were less ritirees settling in Florida.

Correct me if I am wrong.


Cheers!



option "c" is not correct since they say there are more business catering to tourists but not stating whether the no of tourists has increased or not..

option "a" is not correct since it just states that Florida "attracts" more retirees but the question says the the no has decreased..!!

Cheers,
Hem
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 22 Dec 2007, 04:37
du_bill wrote:
If A says something like below, it could seriously weaken the argument. Otherwise, the negative effect may still be there...

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state over past ten years.


Hi, I have recently joined. Hope this will help some:

Answer choice "C" merely changes the premises to the conclusion, the evidence the conclusion is based on. It is complete contradiction, which is wrong in its nature.

Answer choice "A" - it is great that Florida attracts more retired people than any other state does. But suppose that during the last ten years less people have retired at all in the whole country or simply less of the retired have moved anywhere. It means that retired people in Florida despite that it attracts those more than any other state does will be less now... and local companies indeed will be effected.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2593
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 0

Re: Useful Tips for CR: [#permalink] New post 22 Dec 2007, 09:49
jpv wrote:
This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR. Please feel free to discuss and add.

-Hong


Percentage Trap

I would like to add Percentage Trap to this llist. It can be best explained with this example:

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by 3 percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
E. The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.


Anand's explaination:
Guys this is a beauty. Please hammer this into your head. This is a standard percentage trap. Let me elaborate.

Assume that last year 1000 people in the US moved out of state to retire.
Of this say 10% moved to florida = 100 people
So 90% moved to states other than florida right?

This year 20000 people moved to other state to retire
Of this say 8% moved to florida = 160 people.
So 92% moved to states other than florida right?

Though the %of people moving to florida has decreased (because %of people moving to otherstates has increased) number of people moving to florida has infact increased from 100 to 160. So the local businesses are gonna do great.

The bold portion is what (D) says and thus weakens the argument more seriously than (C).


D. Also notice that C does not weaken the argument... it actually shifts the arguments focus just a bit.

C doesnt explain why "Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees" these local businesses that cater to retires will not suffer. Just b/c other businesses wont doesnt mean that these businesses wont as well. C warps the argument. If you saw this you could still use the numbers approach, which is still helpful, or successfully POE to D.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 13
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 14

Re: Useful Tips for CR: [#permalink] New post 09 Jun 2008, 03:25
Situation : # of retirees moving into Florida has been decreased in the last 10 years and this might potentially have -ve impact on local business's economy.

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
>>> We have no idea about Florida's comparison to other States. So, drop this !
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
>>> This agrees with the argument (people moving out of jobs in Florida in the past 10 yrs). So, drop this !
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
>> If this is true, decreasing # of retirees settling in Florida will not impact the economy of local businesses. So, this might weaken the argument => Answer !
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
>> This contradicts the fact mentioned in the statement. Rather total # of people who retired and moved to another state HAS DECREASED.

E. The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
>> No idea or data about # of retired migrants of last year and its comparison to 10 years back. Drop this !
Re: Useful Tips for CR:   [#permalink] 09 Jun 2008, 03:25
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
19 CR Tips Tricks and Questions crackHSW 2 12 Aug 2012, 06:18
Tips and Tricks cipher 0 08 Aug 2014, 20:39
2 To use tricks or not to use tricks..... Victor81 3 20 Apr 2008, 15:57
Does anyone using the LSAT 1000CR collection.... nero44 1 19 Oct 2005, 11:09
Display posts from previous: Sort by

This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR.

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 38 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| 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®.