Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 08:18 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 08:18 |
|
|
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 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite 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/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 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. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
23 Dec 2024, 09:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
65% (02:01) correct
35%
(02:16)
wrong
based on 862
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
12 Days of Christmas 2024 - 2025 Competition with $40,000 of Prizes
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.
|
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.
| Patron 1's argument | Patron 2's argument | |
| Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. | ||
| Counters the analogy with a different perspective. | ||
| Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons. | ||
| Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. | ||
| Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
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.
23 Dec 2024, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
GMAT Club's Official Explanation:
Patron 1's Argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons, arguing that the 5-book limit is unreasonable and insufficient to meet their reading needs.
Patron 2's Argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints, asserting that the higher limit for students is justified by their unique academic requirements.
The correct answer is:
Patron 1's Argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Option 5 is incorrect because Patron 1's argument focuses on the unreasonableness of the overall 5-book limit, and the unfairness of discriminating based on academic status (the exception for university students). Patron 1 is not directly challenging the justification for the higher limit for students.
Patron 2's Argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints
General Discussion
23 Dec 2024, 09:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Patron 1's argument:
Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Patron 1 focuses on how the new policy directly affects them and other library patrons. They argue that a limit of 5 books is insufficient for their reading needs, especially since they use the library to supplement their home collections. This reflects a personal impact on their ability to access books, which is a key part of their objection.
Patron 2's argument:
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Patron 2 acknowledges the frustration but argues that the policy is reasonable given the library’s limited resources. They suggest that the policy is a compromise, balancing the needs of all patrons while ensuring broader access to the library’s collection. This is a response to the concern raised by Patron 1, presenting a perspective that sees the policy as a reasonable solution considering the library's constraints.
Ans C, D
Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Patron 1 focuses on how the new policy directly affects them and other library patrons. They argue that a limit of 5 books is insufficient for their reading needs, especially since they use the library to supplement their home collections. This reflects a personal impact on their ability to access books, which is a key part of their objection.
Patron 2's argument:
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Patron 2 acknowledges the frustration but argues that the policy is reasonable given the library’s limited resources. They suggest that the policy is a compromise, balancing the needs of all patrons while ensuring broader access to the library’s collection. This is a response to the concern raised by Patron 1, presenting a perspective that sees the policy as a reasonable solution considering the library's constraints.
Ans C, D
23 Dec 2024, 09:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Patron 1 seems to argue the impact the policy has on him/her with the incapability of limited books not satisfying their personal needs, he/she brings out one more point on the fairness of discrimination based on academic status of university students.
Patron 2 agrees with the frustration of patron 1 but tries to justify the policy by giving additional facts that library has to maintain broader reaches to balance all needs. Also he justifies the exception by mentioning the need of more intensive reading which tends to require more allocation for university students.
Options which best suit this arguments are -
| Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. | There is no analogy discussed in the argument, hence irrelevant |
| Counters the analogy with a different perspective. | There is no analogy discussed in the argument, hence irrelevant |
| Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons. | This sounds more like Patron 1's idea of the impact the policy has on the disruption of his personal needs |
| Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. | This seems like a counterargument which Patron 2 provides to justify the policy with the broader balance needed for better library reach |
| Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs. | This is mentioned in the argument but Patron 1 calls out discrimination based on academic status and not the unique needs which Patron 2 justifies later |
