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.
Jun 0210:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Probability is one of the most important GMAT Quant topics because it often combines logic, counting, set theory, and permutations & combinations. Many students try to solve probability questions by listing every possible case, but GMAT probability...- Jun 03
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 7 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we are rounding up the oddballs, the misfits, and the format-benders: EXCEPT, Fill-In-The-Blanks, and other unusual Critical Reasoning question types. When you see a question that ends with a literal blank line 
May 2910:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jun 04
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare. - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
31 May 2026, 05:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Strengthens: Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens: By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
36% (02:00) correct
64%
(02:41)
wrong
based on 33
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A philosophy professor randomly assigned students to either of the two different sides of a debate in an ethics class, regardless of their stance on the issue. The students then researched and prepared arguments for a week. The students had been almost evenly divided on the issue when the assignments were made, according to an anonymous survey, but almost all of the students reported strong agreement with their assigned position in another, post debate anonymous survey. The professor concluded that the research and preparation for the debate had a polarizing effect, causing many students to change their original positions.
In the columns, select the statement that, if true, would most strengthen the professor’s conclusion and the statement that, if true, would most weaken the conclusion. Make only two selections, one in each column.
In the columns, select the statement that, if true, would most strengthen the professor’s conclusion and the statement that, if true, would most weaken the conclusion. Make only two selections, one in each column.
| Strengthens | Weakens | |
| Most students learned a great deal about both sides of their debate topic during their week of preparation. | ||
| Most of the students consulted research materials that were outdated and based on incomplete data. | ||
| Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic. | ||
| By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with. | ||
| Many students had not reported their original positions to their debate partners at the outset of the project. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Strengthens: Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens: By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
Solving this question helps.
Taking a timed set of similar questions in
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →
is even better.
31 May 2026, 05:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer Explanation (Official):
Evaluate
The professor’s conclusion was that researching and preparing for the debate caused many students to change their original positions on the issue, with a polarizing effect: that is, it made the students develop more intense, polarized opinions than they had at first. We’re told that after the debate, almost all the students reported strong agreement with their assigned debate positions. Thus, evidence that none of the students had strong feelings on the issue prior to the assignment would strengthen the professor’s conclusion that the assignment both changed and polarized the students’ positions.
On the other hand, evidence that almost all the students already agreed with the position they supported during the debate would weaken the professor’s conclusion, because this evidence would suggest that the students’ opinions were similar before and after the assignment, and thus that the assignment must not have changed their opinions much.
Strengthens:
The correct answer is Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens:
The correct answer is By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
Evaluate
The professor’s conclusion was that researching and preparing for the debate caused many students to change their original positions on the issue, with a polarizing effect: that is, it made the students develop more intense, polarized opinions than they had at first. We’re told that after the debate, almost all the students reported strong agreement with their assigned debate positions. Thus, evidence that none of the students had strong feelings on the issue prior to the assignment would strengthen the professor’s conclusion that the assignment both changed and polarized the students’ positions.
On the other hand, evidence that almost all the students already agreed with the position they supported during the debate would weaken the professor’s conclusion, because this evidence would suggest that the students’ opinions were similar before and after the assignment, and thus that the assignment must not have changed their opinions much.
Strengthens:
The correct answer is Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens:
The correct answer is By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
31 May 2026, 06:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is a classic Two-Part Analysis question testing your ability to evaluate an argument, and the trap is subtle enough that I want to walk through the reasoning carefully.
The professor's conclusion: the research and preparation process had a "polarizing effect," meaning it caused students to develop stronger, more extreme views than they started with.
For the strengthen column: you want something that rules out alternative explanations for why almost all students ended up agreeing with their assigned position.
For the weaken column: you want something that suggests the change in views happened for a different reason, or that there wasn't really a change at all.
Going through the options:
Option 1 (learned a great deal about both sides): This is actually a trap. Knowing more about both sides doesn't explain why students would shift toward their assigned position specifically. Neutral on the argument.
Option 2 (consulted outdated research): Weakens the quality of the debate but doesn't address whether the professor's conclusion about polarization is right or wrong.
Option 3 (prior to assignment, none had strong feelings): This one directly removes the biggest alternative explanation, which is that students were already polarized before the debate started. If no one had strong feelings initially, then almost all reporting strong agreement afterward is genuinely attributable to the preparation process. This strengthens the conclusion.
Option 4 (by chance, almost all assigned to the side they already agreed with): This is the weaken answer. If students were assigned to a position they already held, then their "strong agreement" in the post-debate survey isn't evidence of polarization at all. They never changed. The professor's inference collapses.
Option 5 (many hadn't told partners their positions): Introduces ambiguity but doesn't clearly strengthen or weaken.
Answer: Strengthens = Option 3, Weakens = Option 4.
The move that trips people on TPA strengthen/weaken questions is ignoring alternative explanations. The professor assumed the preparation caused the shift. Your job is to find what seals that assumption (option 3) and what blows it open (option 4).
The professor's conclusion: the research and preparation process had a "polarizing effect," meaning it caused students to develop stronger, more extreme views than they started with.
For the strengthen column: you want something that rules out alternative explanations for why almost all students ended up agreeing with their assigned position.
For the weaken column: you want something that suggests the change in views happened for a different reason, or that there wasn't really a change at all.
Going through the options:
Option 1 (learned a great deal about both sides): This is actually a trap. Knowing more about both sides doesn't explain why students would shift toward their assigned position specifically. Neutral on the argument.
Option 2 (consulted outdated research): Weakens the quality of the debate but doesn't address whether the professor's conclusion about polarization is right or wrong.
Option 3 (prior to assignment, none had strong feelings): This one directly removes the biggest alternative explanation, which is that students were already polarized before the debate started. If no one had strong feelings initially, then almost all reporting strong agreement afterward is genuinely attributable to the preparation process. This strengthens the conclusion.
Option 4 (by chance, almost all assigned to the side they already agreed with): This is the weaken answer. If students were assigned to a position they already held, then their "strong agreement" in the post-debate survey isn't evidence of polarization at all. They never changed. The professor's inference collapses.
Option 5 (many hadn't told partners their positions): Introduces ambiguity but doesn't clearly strengthen or weaken.
Answer: Strengthens = Option 3, Weakens = Option 4.
The move that trips people on TPA strengthen/weaken questions is ignoring alternative explanations. The professor assumed the preparation caused the shift. Your job is to find what seals that assumption (option 3) and what blows it open (option 4).
