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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
11 Oct 2021, 12:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
85% (01:10) correct
15%
(01:44)
wrong
based on 184
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
1990 editorial: Local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever since the 1970s, when a soft drink from a vending machine cost about the same. The price of a soft drink has more than doubled since, so phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editorial’s argument?
(A) A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editorial’s argument?
(A) A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
01 Nov 2021, 23:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Analysis of the argument: This is clearly a co-relation based comparison
Premise 1: In 1970 local pay phone cost = soft drink cost
Premise 2: Cost of soft drink has doubled from 1970 to 1990
Conclusion: Phone companies are allowed to raise price of pay phones.
We are asked to weaken the argument. Preliminary analysis of the argument allows us to guess that the argument makes a vague comparison between pay phones and soft drinks without justifying this approach.
Pre-thinking a weakening answer choice should indicate that there was a valid reason for increase in cost of soft drinks which is not applicable for pay phones.
(A) A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
--> This does not affect the argument that says pay phone companies can increase the cost today.
(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
--> This in fact strengthens the argument by providing a cause for increasing pay phone costs.
(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
--> This raises additional questions about how the government regulations affect the pay phone costs.
(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
--> This accurately weakens the argument by providing a cause for increase in cost soft drinks and justifying that this cause is not applicable for increasing cost of pay phone.
(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
--> We do not know from the statement whether Technological advancements should increase or decrease the pay phone costs. Technological advancements can require additional funding which may increase the costs.
Premise 1: In 1970 local pay phone cost = soft drink cost
Premise 2: Cost of soft drink has doubled from 1970 to 1990
Conclusion: Phone companies are allowed to raise price of pay phones.
We are asked to weaken the argument. Preliminary analysis of the argument allows us to guess that the argument makes a vague comparison between pay phones and soft drinks without justifying this approach.
Pre-thinking a weakening answer choice should indicate that there was a valid reason for increase in cost of soft drinks which is not applicable for pay phones.
(A) A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
--> This does not affect the argument that says pay phone companies can increase the cost today.
(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
--> This in fact strengthens the argument by providing a cause for increasing pay phone costs.
(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
--> This raises additional questions about how the government regulations affect the pay phone costs.
(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
--> This accurately weakens the argument by providing a cause for increase in cost soft drinks and justifying that this cause is not applicable for increasing cost of pay phone.
(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
--> We do not know from the statement whether Technological advancements should increase or decrease the pay phone costs. Technological advancements can require additional funding which may increase the costs.
Moderators:
