Last visit was: 07 Sep 2026, 02:14 It is currently 07 Sep 2026, 02:14
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 (Hard)|   Weaken|                  
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 16,646
Own Kudos:
81,214
Given Kudos: 491
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,646
Kudos: 81,214
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Ther 13 Aug 2023, 00:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MissionAdmit
Hi KarishmaB doesn't the lower avg price of newspapers in Town S suggest that because the cost is lower hence more newspapers are sold?

It seems like a weaker to me. The logic about economies of scale is not mentioned anywhere in the question

KarishmaB
ricokevin
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:


(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.

(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.

(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.

Premise:
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T.

Conclusion: The citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.

We certainly jumped the gun here, right? Just because more papers are sold, we can't conclude that citizens of S are better informed.
What if town S has many more people than town T? That will explain why more papers are sold in S. Option (A)
What if town S people buy the newspapers for discount coupons but not read it? Again, then people of S may not be better informed. Option (C)
What if newspapers printed in town S are of local news only. Then town S people will not be better informed about major world events. Option (D)
Option (B) says that people of town T buy their newspapers in town S. That also explains more papers sold in S though people of town T may be better informed.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.
Price has nothing to do with whether people will be better informed. Just because you price a product lower, doesn't mean it will automatically sell more. Only someone who wants to buy it will buy it. Besides, the price may be lower because more papers are sold (economies of scale) so the cause may be "more papers sold" and lower price may be the effect, not the other way around.
This does not weaken our conclusion.

Answer (E)
Show more

Does it matter why more newspapers are sold in town S? Perhaps they are cheaper, perhaps they are more readily available, perhaps they are sold as a morning package with milk and most people subscribe to it, perhaps schools and offices in S have made reading newspapers mandatory, perhaps literacy is higher in S, ... who knows?
The point is that we are given that more newspapers are sold in S, whatever the reason. Hence the number of people reading the newspaper is assumed to be higher in S.
Hence we are concluding that people in S are more aware of world events.

Even if the newspapers in S are cheaper, it doesn't weaken that people are more aware of world events in S. Whether people paid a high price or a low price to get the paper, it doesn't matter. They got it and read it and are now aware of world events.

Hence (E) doesn't weaken the conclusion.
User avatar
Jayant9090
User avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2018
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 98
Posts: 37
Kudos: 9
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Ther 26 Nov 2024, 08:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
WWW(What went wrong)-
(D)- Didn't comprehend the option, thought what will be the point of Local news!
While passage talks about world news.
LOR for correct-
(E)-there is no connection of price from better informed citizens(Conclusion).

ricokevin
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:


(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.

(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.

(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.
Show more
User avatar
djangobackend
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2024
Last visit: 05 Jul 2026
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Posts: 88
Kudos: 23
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Ther 22 Dec 2024, 00:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion - "more informed" - so to weaken we need to say that less informed or same informed level.

E Incorrect - lower price could explain why more newspapers are sold in S than T. but does selling equate to reading? not necessarily, they could very well be using newspapers for all other purposes but reading.

A - weakens by pointing that on avg. both may be equally informed.

B - so this would explain the greater number of newspapers sold and how T people might actually be more informed than S since they are the ones contributing a big chunk of newspaper buyers in S. - weakens

C - decreases our belief even if ever so slightly, it could be very well that S guys are geniuses but still learning this info. decreases my belief. - weakens

D - decreases our belief, was straightforward weakener
User avatar
empirekid1301
User avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2024
Last visit: 06 Jul 2026
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
2
Posts: 6
Kudos: 2
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Ther 22 Dec 2024, 23:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i feel like both D and E is can be correct as in D its a news paper that only talks about local news not world so it wont weaken the statement on s being more knowledgeable and E for the obvious reason that even tho the price is high it doesn't change the fact that more ppl still read in s
User avatar
be1071517
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2020
Last visit: 20 Aug 2026
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 27
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Ther 15 Jun 2026, 04:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise: More newspapers sold in Town S than Town T.
Conclusion: Citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than citizens of Town T.
Gap/Assumption being made: "Newspapers sold" = "Informedness about major world events." This single jump hides several embedded assumptions:
  1. The newspapers sold actually cover world events (not just local news, sports, classifieds, etc.)
  2. The newspapers sold are bought by and read by the citizens of that town (not bought elsewhere, not bought and discarded)
  3. Higher sales volume per capita — not just in absolute terms — reflects greater consumption
  4. Buying a newspaper translates into actually reading/absorbing its content
This is a classic "X correlates with Y, therefore X causes/indicates Y" argument, except even simpler — it's really "more of metric A (sales) → therefore more of unrelated metric B (informedness)." Any answer that attacks the bridge between sales and informedness will weaken. Any answer that's consistent with or irrelevant to this bridge will not weaken (and is the EXCEPT answer here).
Framework for Evaluating Each Choice
For an "EXCEPT" weaken question, ask of each option:
Quote:
"Does this option attack one of the embedded assumptions (1-4 above)? Does it offer a reason why 'more papers sold' might NOT mean 'more informed about world events'?"
Show more
  • If YES → it weakens → eliminate (since we want the one that does NOT weaken)
  • If NO, or if it's irrelevant/neutral/strengthens → that's our answer
Walking Through Each Option
(A) Town S has a larger population.
→ Attacks assumption #3 (per-capita vs. absolute). More people = more total sales naturally, even if each individual citizen is equally or less informed. Weakens.
(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their papers there.
→ Attacks assumption #2 (who actually buys/reads them). T's sales are being misattributed to S; T's residents could be just as informed, their purchases just got counted under "S." Weakens.
(C) Average S citizen spends less time reading newspapers than average T citizen.
→ Attacks assumption #4 (buying ≠ absorbing). Even if S buys more, if S reads less per paper/person, they could be less informed. Weakens.
(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to local events is published in S.
→ Attacks assumption #1 (content = world events). Some of S's "newspapers sold" count includes a publication that contributes zero to world-event informedness — so the raw sales number for S is partly irrelevant/inflated for this specific comparison. Weakens.
(E) Average newsstand price in S is lower than in T.
→ Does this attack any of the four assumptions?

ricokevin
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Therefore, the citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than are the citizens of Town T.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:


(A) Town S has a larger population than Town T.

(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their newspapers there.

(C) The average citizen of Town S spends less time reading newspapers than does the average citizen of Town T.

(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to the coverage of local events is published in Town S.

(E) The average newsstand price of newspapers sold in Town S is lower than the average price of newspapers sold in Town T.
Show more
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 07 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,291
Own Kudos:
33,902
Given Kudos: 716
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,291
Kudos: 33,902
A greater number of newspapers are sold in Town S than in Town T. Ther 15 Jun 2026, 19:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi be1071517,

Your four-assumption framework is genuinely sharp, and you've correctly mapped A, B, C, and D each onto one of the bridge assumptions. So let's answer your exact question: does (E) attack any of assumptions 1-4? No - and here's the clean reason why.

Notice that all four of your assumptions live on the bridge between the premise ("more papers sold in S") and the conclusion ("S citizens better informed"). Each of A-D gives a reason that bridge might not hold: maybe the sales aren't per capita (3), maybe the buyers aren't S citizens (2), maybe buying isn't reading (4), maybe the papers aren't about world events (1).

(E) doesn't touch the bridge at all - it sits on the premise side. A lower newsstand price is just a possible explanation for why more papers are sold in S. But "more papers are sold in S" is already a given fact in the stimulus. Explaining the cause of a fact you already accept does nothing to the leap from that fact to informedness.

So run your own test on (E): Does it offer a reason why "more papers sold" might NOT mean "more informed"? No. It actually leaves all four assumptions intact - it just tells you why the premise might be true. That's why it neither weakens nor strengthens, and is the EXCEPT answer.

To lock the distinction in, turn one knob:

- (E) as written - "papers are cheaper in S" - explains the premise - no effect on the bridge.
- Now imagine (E) said "the cheaper papers in S are bought mainly as wrapping paper" - that would jump onto assumption 4 (buying does not equal reading) - and suddenly it weakens.

Same topic, but only the second version reaches the bridge. (E) as actually written never gets there.

Answer: E

be1071517
Premise: More newspapers sold in Town S than Town T.
Conclusion: Citizens of Town S are better informed about major world events than citizens of Town T.
Gap/Assumption being made: "Newspapers sold" = "Informedness about major world events." This single jump hides several embedded assumptions:
  1. The newspapers sold actually cover world events (not just local news, sports, classifieds, etc.)
  2. The newspapers sold are bought by and read by the citizens of that town (not bought elsewhere, not bought and discarded)
  3. Higher sales volume per capita — not just in absolute terms — reflects greater consumption
  4. Buying a newspaper translates into actually reading/absorbing its content
This is a classic "X correlates with Y, therefore X causes/indicates Y" argument, except even simpler — it's really "more of metric A (sales) → therefore more of unrelated metric B (informedness)." Any answer that attacks the bridge between sales and informedness will weaken. Any answer that's consistent with or irrelevant to this bridge will not weaken (and is the EXCEPT answer here).
Framework for Evaluating Each Choice
For an "EXCEPT" weaken question, ask of each option:

  • If YES → it weakens → eliminate (since we want the one that does NOT weaken)
  • If NO, or if it's irrelevant/neutral/strengthens → that's our answer
Walking Through Each Option
(A) Town S has a larger population.
→ Attacks assumption #3 (per-capita vs. absolute). More people = more total sales naturally, even if each individual citizen is equally or less informed. Weakens.
(B) Most citizens of Town T work in Town S and buy their papers there.
→ Attacks assumption #2 (who actually buys/reads them). T's sales are being misattributed to S; T's residents could be just as informed, their purchases just got counted under "S." Weakens.
(C) Average S citizen spends less time reading newspapers than average T citizen.
→ Attacks assumption #4 (buying ≠ absorbing). Even if S buys more, if S reads less per paper/person, they could be less informed. Weakens.
(D) A weekly newspaper restricted to local events is published in S.
→ Attacks assumption #1 (content = world events). Some of S's "newspapers sold" count includes a publication that contributes zero to world-event informedness — so the raw sales number for S is partly irrelevant/inflated for this specific comparison. Weakens.
(E) Average newsstand price in S is lower than in T.
→ Does this attack any of the four assumptions?


Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts