Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 04:16 |
It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 04:16 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 2701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Sep 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0102:00 AM EDT
-03:00 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
Oct 0301:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Saturdays Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
15 Dec 2025, 21:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
D. In order to compare each age category, the conditions need to be alike.
15 Dec 2025, 22:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
The stats we have are as follows:
The conclusion is that elder doctors are more reliable ( = less error frequency) due to their cation and experience.
In order to make such a conclusion, the author assumes that the rates above are fully representative and proportionately accurate when it comes to mistake frequency.
Let's find this in the answer options:
A. While this is also logical, the argument mainly focuses on the difference between 60-something and 30-something doctors.
B. Very tempting, but the errors are also represented in percentages; if we were speaking about absolute numbers, then this assumption would be mandatory - but since we already have rates, this is not a must.
C. Perhaps, but the risks are seemingly already embedded in the definition of 'avoidable' medical errors. Plus, how much 'less likely'? Is it significant or not?
D. This looks correct, and we can also use the negation test: say, 60+ doctors treat considerably fewer patients per year. For them, for instance, 50 people can be a pool of patients, whereas for younger doctors it's more like 1000-2000. Therefore, while the error rate is still higher, the statistics for older doctors become unrepresentative, since the sample is truly small and simply doesn't provide a sturdy comparison to statistically sound and high-performing younger specialists.
E. While good, it's definitely not a mandatory assmption, since even having a small outlier wouldn't necessarily defy the general tendency.
Therefore, the answer is D.
- Below 30: 10% errors
- From 30 to 35: 7% errors
- Above 60: 2% errors
The conclusion is that elder doctors are more reliable ( = less error frequency) due to their cation and experience.
In order to make such a conclusion, the author assumes that the rates above are fully representative and proportionately accurate when it comes to mistake frequency.
Let's find this in the answer options:
A. While this is also logical, the argument mainly focuses on the difference between 60-something and 30-something doctors.
B. Very tempting, but the errors are also represented in percentages; if we were speaking about absolute numbers, then this assumption would be mandatory - but since we already have rates, this is not a must.
C. Perhaps, but the risks are seemingly already embedded in the definition of 'avoidable' medical errors. Plus, how much 'less likely'? Is it significant or not?
D. This looks correct, and we can also use the negation test: say, 60+ doctors treat considerably fewer patients per year. For them, for instance, 50 people can be a pool of patients, whereas for younger doctors it's more like 1000-2000. Therefore, while the error rate is still higher, the statistics for older doctors become unrepresentative, since the sample is truly small and simply doesn't provide a sturdy comparison to statistically sound and high-performing younger specialists.
E. While good, it's definitely not a mandatory assmption, since even having a small outlier wouldn't necessarily defy the general tendency.
Therefore, the answer is D.
15 Dec 2025, 22:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Let’s for time being assume the number of doctors in the age group less than 30 yrs as 100x, so 10% denote 10x.
The number of doctors between 30 and 35 be, 100 y and 7% denotes 7y.
We are using the notation just to get a better understanding of the question.
It’s further mentioned that (10x + 7y) made ATLEAST ONE unavoidable error during a medical procedure.
The number of doctors above the age of 60 yrs be 100z, and 2 % denotes 2z. In contrast , only 2z doctors belonging to the age group 60 yrs and above, had made unavoidable medical errors.
The author mentions the error rates of older doctors (beyond 60 yrs) as having an error rate much lesser than the error rates of the younger lot (35 yrs and below). So, we can say 2z < (10x+7y).
The reason attributed for such a low error rate is: advanced experience and learned propensity for caution.
We need to figure out the arguement:
Option A : This option cannot be considered as assumption. As assumptions need to bring something new to the table. This view is what author has used to support a conclusion. Hence, wrong.
Option B : If the number of doctors above 60 yrs are less in number, then it’s very obvious that 2% of 100z will be less when compared to the higher percentages of the other doctors. This cannot be neither considered as assumption.
Option C: If doctors above the age group of 60yrs perform a lesser number of highly critical medical procedures, then the medical error rates are liable to be less comparatively to the medical error rates of the other band group of doctors who are in charge of larger number of high critical cases.
If we negate this option, if older doctors do perform cases of equal criticality as younger doctors perform, then this supports the view that advanced learning and propensity towards caution holds strong. Hence, the answer.
Option D: Speaks about average, a terminology that’s very dicey - as it traverses between the extremes. As per the option, the older doctors either treat an equally critical or more number of critical cases than normal. So, older doctors share an equal quantum of workload.
If we negate the option D: that older doctors treat lesser amount of patients, then the 2% error rate seems a valid indicator. The option mentions about average, so there can be an instance where the procedures are performed by a specific subset of doctors within the above 60 yrs age group, so this questions the conclusive statements made. So, the error rate is attributed to low workload and not the expertise they have possessed. Hence, Wrong.
Option E is a generalised statement made without any supporting evidence or facts. Hence, Wrong.
Option C
16 Dec 2025, 00:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Main thing to notice here is that making a mistake "at least once"
Chance of a doctor making atleast one mistake = 1 - prob of making a mistake on (patient 1 or patient 2 or patient 3 ... or last patient)
This chance increases when prob of making a mistake on (patient1 or patient 2 or ... or last patient) decreases.
How does that decrease ?
- if you see less number of patients, then your chance of doing atleast one mistake is smaller than someone who sees far more patients. for ex, someone sees 10 patients vs someone who sees 1000 patients. The one seeing 10 patients may luck themselves out but when you see 1000 patients, you may likely make a mistake.
- Let's say number of patients are same for both cases but if you are seeing more risky patients than the other group, then also chance is higher to do a mistake
- Let's say number of cases are same and risky patients are same but you have some extra support that derisks you other than just experience ?
A. Between those 30 and below vs 35 and above, the difference could be due to any reason. Conclusion is concerned about 60 and above vs 35 and below.
B. Number of doctors in the group doesn't affect the risk of each doctor making atleast one mistake because we are talking in percentage terms not in absolute numbers. If it were absolute numbers, then more the number of doctors, the more the number of those that make mistake. But since we are talking in percentage terms here, it will nearly be the same assuming the risk per doctor is same.
C. Weakener. This decreases the risk per doctor for 60 and above and gives an alternate reason than mentioned in the conclusion.
D. Correct. If doctor in 60 and above age group treats far fewer people, then risk per each doctor goes down. So it is assumed that it is not the case.
E. There could be an age bracket for which the percentage is even smaller but for a different reason. So that doesn't necessarily break out argument or in other words not a necessary condition.
Chance of a doctor making atleast one mistake = 1 - prob of making a mistake on (patient 1 or patient 2 or patient 3 ... or last patient)
This chance increases when prob of making a mistake on (patient1 or patient 2 or ... or last patient) decreases.
How does that decrease ?
- if you see less number of patients, then your chance of doing atleast one mistake is smaller than someone who sees far more patients. for ex, someone sees 10 patients vs someone who sees 1000 patients. The one seeing 10 patients may luck themselves out but when you see 1000 patients, you may likely make a mistake.
- Let's say number of patients are same for both cases but if you are seeing more risky patients than the other group, then also chance is higher to do a mistake
- Let's say number of cases are same and risky patients are same but you have some extra support that derisks you other than just experience ?
A. Between those 30 and below vs 35 and above, the difference could be due to any reason. Conclusion is concerned about 60 and above vs 35 and below.
B. Number of doctors in the group doesn't affect the risk of each doctor making atleast one mistake because we are talking in percentage terms not in absolute numbers. If it were absolute numbers, then more the number of doctors, the more the number of those that make mistake. But since we are talking in percentage terms here, it will nearly be the same assuming the risk per doctor is same.
C. Weakener. This decreases the risk per doctor for 60 and above and gives an alternate reason than mentioned in the conclusion.
D. Correct. If doctor in 60 and above age group treats far fewer people, then risk per each doctor goes down. So it is assumed that it is not the case.
E. There could be an age bracket for which the percentage is even smaller but for a different reason. So that doesn't necessarily break out argument or in other words not a necessary condition.
