Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Dec 2024, 13:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone 
Patron 1 focuses on two aspects:
First answer: the best match is: "Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons."
Patron 2 counters Patron 1's argument by:
Patron 1 focuses on two aspects:
- Personal Impact: They argue that the policy is inadequate for individuals who rely on the library to supplement their book collections.
- Fairness: They assert that the exception for university students is discriminatory and not justified.
First answer: the best match is: "Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons."
Patron 2 counters Patron 1's argument by:
- Providing a broader perspective, emphasizing the library’s need to ensure equitable access to resources for all patrons.
- Justifying the exception for university students, citing their intensive reading requirements for academic purposes.
23 Dec 2024, 14:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Patron 1 calls into question the assumption that the students have greater reading needs than the patrons. Therefore he (E) Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.
Patron 2 supports the school decision by Suggesting that the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints
Hence choice ED
Patron 2 supports the school decision by Suggesting that the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints
Hence choice ED
Bunuel
23 Dec 2024, 16:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
A local library has recently implemented a new policy that limits the number of books patrons can borrow at one time. The policy states that a patron may only check out up to 5 books at a time, with the exception of students enrolled in university courses who are allowed to check out up to 10 books.
Patron 1: "The new policy is unreasonable. Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs. Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status."
Patron 2: "I understand the frustration, but the library likely implemented this policy to ensure broader access to their collection. With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons. The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework."
In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 1 develops their objection to the library's policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 2 responds to Patron 1's argument.
Here for Patron 1's argument only "Emphasized the personal impact..." makes sense.
For Patron 2's though, we need to understand that it does not draw any analagy, as it does not counter any previous analgy or is against the different threshold for stundents. Only "suggest the policy..." makes sense here.
Patron 1: "The new policy is unreasonable. Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs. Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status."
Patron 2: "I understand the frustration, but the library likely implemented this policy to ensure broader access to their collection. With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons. The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework."
In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 1 develops their objection to the library's policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 2 responds to Patron 1's argument.
| [color=#000000]Patron 1's argument[/color] | [color=#000000]Patron 2's argument[/color] | |
| [color=#000000]Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.[/color] | ||
| [color=#000000]Counters the analogy with a different perspective.[/color] | ||
| [color=#000000]Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.[/color] | ||
| [color=#000000]Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.[/color] | ||
| [color=#000000]Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.[/color] |
Here for Patron 1's argument only "Emphasized the personal impact..." makes sense.
For Patron 2's though, we need to understand that it does not draw any analagy, as it does not counter any previous analgy or is against the different threshold for stundents. Only "suggest the policy..." makes sense here.
