|
|
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.
24 Dec 2024, 06:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Patron 1's argument : To evaluate it from the options we have 3 probable options:
Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. - The Patron does mention that "it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status" but does not draw an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. Eliminate
Counters the analogy with a different perspective. - It counters the library's policy by saying that "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" Keep
Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs. - The Patron 1 does not say that the exception for students is not justified.
Patron 2's argument : To evaluate it from the options we have 2 probable options:
Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons. - No discussion about individual Patrons. Eliminate
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. - This seems more appropriate as the the argument mentions "With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons"
Patron 1's argument: Counters the analogy with a different perspective.
Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. - The Patron does mention that "it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status" but does not draw an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. Eliminate
Counters the analogy with a different perspective. - It counters the library's policy by saying that "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" Keep
Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs. - The Patron 1 does not say that the exception for students is not justified.
Patron 2's argument : To evaluate it from the options we have 2 probable options:
Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons. - No discussion about individual Patrons. Eliminate
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. - This seems more appropriate as the the argument mentions "With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons"
Patron 1's argument: Counters the analogy with a different perspective.
Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Shruuuu
Joined: 21 Nov 2023
Last visit: 19 Jan 2026
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q83 V86 DI78 
24 Dec 2024, 06:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
P1 : P1 states 2 points to show how the policy isn't right - 1. It hampers many people's (not individual) satisfaction level because of the limit & 2. The exception given to university students is discriminatory as per academic levels
P2 : P2 counters by saying keeping a limit helps more people access it & there's a need to balance the needs for all with limited resources & provides reason for providing students with university coursework for more access
The statements which match with P1 :
Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.
P2:
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
P2 : P2 counters by saying keeping a limit helps more people access it & there's a need to balance the needs for all with limited resources & provides reason for providing students with university coursework for more access
The statements which match with P1 :
Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.
P2:
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Bunuel
24 Dec 2024, 06:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO
Patron 1's argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Analysis of Patron 1's Argument:
Patron 1 expresses dissatisfaction with the new policy by emphasizing the personal impact it has on individual patrons. They argue that the limit of 5 books is insufficient for those who use the library to supplement their home book collections. Additionally, they assert that the exception for university students is unfair and discriminatory based on academic status.
Analysis of Patron 2's Response:
Patron 2 acknowledges the frustration but suggests that the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. They argue that the policy likely aims to ensure broader access to the collection for all patrons. Furthermore, Patron 2 justifies the higher limit for students by pointing out their more intensive reading requirements for coursework.
Patron 1's argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Analysis of Patron 1's Argument:
Patron 1 expresses dissatisfaction with the new policy by emphasizing the personal impact it has on individual patrons. They argue that the limit of 5 books is insufficient for those who use the library to supplement their home book collections. Additionally, they assert that the exception for university students is unfair and discriminatory based on academic status.
Analysis of Patron 2's Response:
Patron 2 acknowledges the frustration but suggests that the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. They argue that the policy likely aims to ensure broader access to the collection for all patrons. Furthermore, Patron 2 justifies the higher limit for students by pointing out their more intensive reading requirements for coursework.
