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.
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 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
26 Aug 2026, 09:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi MagicMeat,
Your instinct to tie the answer back to the sales conclusion is good, but let's look at where the real gap in this argument actually sits.
Trace the chain the author builds:
pay for parking → fewer visits (less customer traffic) → reduced sales
Notice that the last link - fewer visits leading to reduced sales - is already stated in the conclusion ("customer traffic would decrease significantly, leading to reduced sales"). The author never justifies the first link: that having to pay will actually make these drivers show up less. That is the hole an assumption must plug, and it's exactly what D does. So even though D talks about "visits," fewer visits is the reduced traffic the argument then converts into reduced sales. D isn't skipping sales - it's supplying the missing step that the sales claim rests on.
Now B. B says businesses depend solely on these drivers "for the majority of their sales." Even if that's true, B tells you nothing about whether these drivers will stop coming once parking costs money. Run the negation test on each:
- Negate D: paying doesn't make them visit less → traffic holds → the whole concern collapses. So D is required.
- Negate B: businesses don't depend solely on drivers → they could still lose a significant chunk of traffic → the concern survives. So B is not required.
On your two meta-questions: don't turn "extremes are rarely right" into a rule - words like solely aren't automatically wrong; they're wrong here because the negation test shows the argument doesn't need that much. And yes, this is exactly necessity vs. sufficiency: an assumption is a necessary link, and only D is one you can't remove without the argument breaking.
Quick parallel to lock it in: "A café raised its coffee price, so its revenue will fall." The needed assumption is the higher price will make customers buy less - not the café depends solely on coffee for most of its revenue. Same shape: fill the behavior link, don't overstate the dependence.
Answer: D
Your instinct to tie the answer back to the sales conclusion is good, but let's look at where the real gap in this argument actually sits.
Trace the chain the author builds:
pay for parking → fewer visits (less customer traffic) → reduced sales
Notice that the last link - fewer visits leading to reduced sales - is already stated in the conclusion ("customer traffic would decrease significantly, leading to reduced sales"). The author never justifies the first link: that having to pay will actually make these drivers show up less. That is the hole an assumption must plug, and it's exactly what D does. So even though D talks about "visits," fewer visits is the reduced traffic the argument then converts into reduced sales. D isn't skipping sales - it's supplying the missing step that the sales claim rests on.
Now B. B says businesses depend solely on these drivers "for the majority of their sales." Even if that's true, B tells you nothing about whether these drivers will stop coming once parking costs money. Run the negation test on each:
- Negate D: paying doesn't make them visit less → traffic holds → the whole concern collapses. So D is required.
- Negate B: businesses don't depend solely on drivers → they could still lose a significant chunk of traffic → the concern survives. So B is not required.
On your two meta-questions: don't turn "extremes are rarely right" into a rule - words like solely aren't automatically wrong; they're wrong here because the negation test shows the argument doesn't need that much. And yes, this is exactly necessity vs. sufficiency: an assumption is a necessary link, and only D is one you can't remove without the argument breaking.
Quick parallel to lock it in: "A café raised its coffee price, so its revenue will fall." The needed assumption is the higher price will make customers buy less - not the café depends solely on coffee for most of its revenue. Same shape: fill the behavior link, don't overstate the dependence.
Answer: D
MagicMeat
Moderators:
