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.
Jul 2006:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Stuck at a score plateau and struggling to hit your target score? Join this Masterclass to understand how you should turn around your prep to reach your goal in just 40 days. Discover what top scorers know that you don’t!
Jul 2006:30 AM PDT
-07:45 AM PDT
A GRE quant practice session to solve 15 tough questions from Counting Methods concepts tested in GRE quant section. Take this quiz with other test takers in timed conditions, analyze your GRE study progress, and more.- Jul 20
07:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT quant practice session to solve 10 tough questions from word problems and overlapping sets concepts tested in GMAT quant section. Take this quiz with other test takers in timed conditions. - Jul 20
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT Verbal practice session to solve 10 tough questions from the Reading Comprehension section tested in the GMAT Verbal section. Take this quiz with other test takers in timed conditions. 
Jul 1410:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
GMAT Preparation Online - A limited time sale use code: EXPERTSGLOBAL10
Jul 1703:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jul 19
09:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Struggling to stay on time during Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) questions on the GMAT? In this video, GMAT expert Karishma Bansal (founder of ANA Prep) breaks down a 3-minute scanning strategy that can help you save critical time... 
Jul 1911:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.- Jul 22
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
LIVE Q&A with Shrutav Donde | Perfect 805 GMAT Scorer Join us for an exclusive live session with Shrutav, who achieved the rarest of achievements - a perfect 805 GMAT score with Q90, V90, and DI90. - Jul 22
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our second video about test accommodations for the GMAT exam, GMAT Ninja’s founder chats with Jason Northrup, Test Accommodations Senior manager at GMAC, about the three main qualifying condition categories... - Jul 23
08:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations! 
Jul 2410:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 2510:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors..- Jul 26
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
28 Mar 2021, 05:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Brian123
goaltop30mba
hi VeritasKarishma
I do understand the explanation that you have provided, but I still have a doubt.
The data in the argument shows that "people living in low income areas are more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than are people living in not-low income areas". Getting to this observation is possible when we assume that the ones who got sentenced did commit the crimes and got prosecuted for those crimes.
The author concludes that "people living in low income areas are more likely to commit a crime than are people living in not-low income areas".
Now i do see that there clearly is a gap between what the data is showing and what the author is saying ie. there is definitely some connection between "committing a crime" and "getting sentenced for it". I also agree that option C mentions this missing connection, BUT isn't option C going against what the data is saying? As mentioned above the data says that one group is more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than is the group, but, given option C as the answer, author is assuming the opposite of what the data is saying in order to get to his conclusion? How can an option that is going against what the data is showing (what the the data is showing is clearly a fact ie something that we cannot change) be the answer?
regards,
I do understand the explanation that you have provided, but I still have a doubt.
The data in the argument shows that "people living in low income areas are more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than are people living in not-low income areas". Getting to this observation is possible when we assume that the ones who got sentenced did commit the crimes and got prosecuted for those crimes.
The author concludes that "people living in low income areas are more likely to commit a crime than are people living in not-low income areas".
Now i do see that there clearly is a gap between what the data is showing and what the author is saying ie. there is definitely some connection between "committing a crime" and "getting sentenced for it". I also agree that option C mentions this missing connection, BUT isn't option C going against what the data is saying? As mentioned above the data says that one group is more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than is the group, but, given option C as the answer, author is assuming the opposite of what the data is saying in order to get to his conclusion? How can an option that is going against what the data is showing (what the the data is showing is clearly a fact ie something that we cannot change) be the answer?
regards,
Hey goaltop30mba, C is just ruling out that the possibility that people living in lower income are more likely to be sentenced. That is also logically possible as rich people might have influential lawyers and other resources, which might tip the odds in their favour. C just says that the lower income people do not have a higher likelihood of being sentenced. That does mean that they have a lower likelihood (we don't know that).
Option C is certainly not the opposite of what the Data has given and is only offering an insight on the likelihood.
Good luck on your top 30 Goal!
hey Brian,
let us take a few numbers.
let the total population be 100.
let the number of people living in low income area be 15 and let the people living in not-low income areas be 85
let the number of people sentenced for committing a crime be : 10, out of which 2 lived in low income areas and 8 lived in not-low income areas
percentage of total number of people living in low income areas that were sentenced for committing crime = (2/15)* 100, which is 13% approximately
percentage of total number of people living in not-low income areas that were sentenced for committing crime = (8/85) * 100, which is 9% approximately
Therefore, the data clearly shows that "people living in low income areas were more likely to be sentenced for committing crime than are people who do not live in low income areas"
The above mentioned data clearly shows the opposite of what option C says, which is strange because in order to get to what the author is saying, one must consider /assume the opposite of what the data shows. Very strange as data's observation is literally the premises.
28 Mar 2021, 06:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
goaltop30mba
Brian123
goaltop30mba
hi VeritasKarishma
I do understand the explanation that you have provided, but I still have a doubt.
The data in the argument shows that "people living in low income areas are more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than are people living in not-low income areas". Getting to this observation is possible when we assume that the ones who got sentenced did commit the crimes and got prosecuted for those crimes.
The author concludes that "people living in low income areas are more likely to commit a crime than are people living in not-low income areas".
Now i do see that there clearly is a gap between what the data is showing and what the author is saying ie. there is definitely some connection between "committing a crime" and "getting sentenced for it". I also agree that option C mentions this missing connection, BUT isn't option C going against what the data is saying? As mentioned above the data says that one group is more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than is the group, but, given option C as the answer, author is assuming the opposite of what the data is saying in order to get to his conclusion? How can an option that is going against what the data is showing (what the the data is showing is clearly a fact ie something that we cannot change) be the answer?
regards,
I do understand the explanation that you have provided, but I still have a doubt.
The data in the argument shows that "people living in low income areas are more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than are people living in not-low income areas". Getting to this observation is possible when we assume that the ones who got sentenced did commit the crimes and got prosecuted for those crimes.
The author concludes that "people living in low income areas are more likely to commit a crime than are people living in not-low income areas".
Now i do see that there clearly is a gap between what the data is showing and what the author is saying ie. there is definitely some connection between "committing a crime" and "getting sentenced for it". I also agree that option C mentions this missing connection, BUT isn't option C going against what the data is saying? As mentioned above the data says that one group is more likely to get sentenced for committing a crime than is the group, but, given option C as the answer, author is assuming the opposite of what the data is saying in order to get to his conclusion? How can an option that is going against what the data is showing (what the the data is showing is clearly a fact ie something that we cannot change) be the answer?
regards,
Hey goaltop30mba, C is just ruling out that the possibility that people living in lower income are more likely to be sentenced. That is also logically possible as rich people might have influential lawyers and other resources, which might tip the odds in their favour. C just says that the lower income people do not have a higher likelihood of being sentenced. That does mean that they have a lower likelihood (we don't know that).
Option C is certainly not the opposite of what the Data has given and is only offering an insight on the likelihood.
Good luck on your top 30 Goal!
hey Brian,
let us take a few numbers.
let the total population be 100.
let the number of people living in low income area be 15 and let the people living in not-low income areas be 85
let the number of people sentenced for committing a crime be : 10, out of which 2 lived in low income areas and 8 lived in not-low income areas
percentage of total number of people living in low income areas that were sentenced for committing crime = (2/15)* 100, which is 13% approximately
percentage of total number of people living in not-low income areas that were sentenced for committing crime = (8/85) * 100, which is 9% approximately
Therefore, the data clearly shows that "people living in low income areas were more likely to be sentenced for committing crime than are people who do not live in low income areas"
The above mentioned data clearly shows the opposite of what option C says, which is strange because in order to get to what the author is saying, one must consider /assume the opposite of what the data shows. Very strange as data's observation is literally the premises.
Actually, it doesn't. The numbers you have mentioned do not show the likelihood of being sentenced. The likelihood of being sentenced would involve the total number of sentences/total number of crimes committed for a particular group. What you've shown is simply the percentage of people who have been sentenced, which has nothing to do with likelihood of being sentenced.
28 Mar 2021, 08:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
hmm.. interesting
"A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them."
what do you think should be the conclusion of the sentence that I have mentioned above? Brian123
"A recent report determined that although only three percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, thirty-three percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them."
what do you think should be the conclusion of the sentence that I have mentioned above? Brian123
