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 2701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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 0102:00 AM EDT
-03:00 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
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
Oct 0408:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
15 Full-length GMAT FE mocks with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (02:17) correct
55%
(02:28)
wrong
based on 687
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.
Every tricky question should trigger a follow up quiz.
Build that habit with
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →.
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).
