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 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM 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
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.
10 May 2021, 02:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
49% (02:05) correct
51%
(02:15)
wrong
based on 338
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A recent survey has shown that today, very few people learn a language foreign to their own. There is no scientific evidence to prove that our linguistic skills are experiencing deterioration. When the same survey was conducted 40 years ago, the results showed that people were twice as likely to learn a new language as they are today, even after the age of 50. It is quite clear that being proficient in another language other than one's native tongue is not as fascinating as it once was.
The author's conclusion relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Becoming proficient in another language is not as useful as it once was.
B. Due to low health standards, the retirement age 40 years ago was lower than it is today leaving people over 45 with more spare time to learn languages.
C. Today, people have focused careers and do not need to acquire the knowledge of another language.
D. Because 40 years ago international travel was less accessible, learning languages had more appeal than it does today.
E. Despite the far-reaching economic and social changes that may have occurred in the past forty years, learning a second language still provides all the advantages it once did.
The author's conclusion relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Becoming proficient in another language is not as useful as it once was.
B. Due to low health standards, the retirement age 40 years ago was lower than it is today leaving people over 45 with more spare time to learn languages.
C. Today, people have focused careers and do not need to acquire the knowledge of another language.
D. Because 40 years ago international travel was less accessible, learning languages had more appeal than it does today.
E. Despite the far-reaching economic and social changes that may have occurred in the past forty years, learning a second language still provides all the advantages it once did.
15 May 2021, 04:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
A recent survey has shown that today, very few people learn a language foreign to their own. There is no scientific evidence to prove that our linguistic skills are experiencing deterioration. When the same survey was conducted 40 years ago, the results showed that people were twice as likely to learn a new language as they are today, even after the age of 50. It is quite clear that being proficient in another language other than one's native tongue is not as fascinating as it once was.
The author's conclusion relies on which of the following assumptions?
A. Becoming proficient in another language is not as useful as it once was.
Incorrect.
To solve this Assumption question, first break down the argument. The phrase A recent survey has shown lets us know for sure that sentence 1 is a premise. Sentence 2 is also a simple fact and, therefore, a premise. Sentence 3 is a premise since it too gives us the results of a survey. The phrase It is quite clear in sentence 4 gives us a clue that it is the author's conclusion to the argument.
Now ask yourself: the author states that because people are less fascinated than they were by foreign languages, they aren't learning them as much. What does the author have to assume in order to reach this conclusion?
If the author assumed the usefulness of languages diminished with time, he our she wouldn't claim fascination is the only reason people didn't learn more languages. The assumption can never be a statement that weakens the conclusion; it's supposed to be the link between the given premises and the conclusion.
B. Due to low health standards, the retirement age 40 years ago was lower than it is today leaving people over 45 with more spare time to learn languages.
Incorrect.
This answer choice takes the form of a new premise about health standards and retirement age 40 years ago. It is irrelevant whether this new data supports the conclusion or not; what you should be looking for is the assumption, which connects between the conclusion and the exisiting premises.
C. Today, people have focused careers and do not need to acquire the knowledge of another language.
Incorrect.
If the author assumed the necessity of languages has changed, he our she wouldn't claim fascination is the only reason people didn't learn more languages. The assumption can never be a statement that weakens the conclusion; it's supposed to be the link between the given premises and the conclusion.
D. Because 40 years ago international travel was less accessible, learning languages had more appeal than it does today.
Incorrect.
This answer choice takes the form of a new premise about the accessibility of travel 40 years ago. It is irrelevant whether this new data supports the conclusion or not; what you should be looking for is the assumption, which connects between the conclusion and the existing premises.
E. Despite the far-reaching economic and social changes that may have occurred in the past forty years, learning a second language still provides all the advantages it once did.
Incredible!
The author concludes that people are not learning new languages because it's not as interesting as it once was. However, for this the author must rule out other explanations. The second premise tells us that it's not because of our ability to learn languages, which remained the same. But perhaps it's because we just don't need languages that much any more? To favor the fascination explanation, the author must have assumed that languages are still as useful as they once were.
Another way to think about E:
If E were not true, and a second language does not provide all the advantages it once did, then the conclusion that being proficient in a language is not as fascinating as it once was is weakened: it is possible that less people are learning a new language not because they are not fascinated with it, but because it is not as useful to do so.
Thus, E is a necessary assumption to reach the conclusion that lack of fascination is the cause to the decline, and not something else.
General Discussion
10 May 2021, 03:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise :
40 years ago - People were twice as likely to learn a new language as they are today, even after the age of 50.
Today - Very few people learn a foreign language + Our linguistic skills have NOT deteriorated!
Conclusion: Being proficient in a foreign language is not as fascinating as it once was.
Prethink: The conclusion is based on the consideration that the reason for very few people learning a foreign language is solely that they are not keen to learn and not that people don't have the skill.
i.e. if it's NOT SKILL then it's KEENNESS to learn.
We must assume that there is no other factor for the reduced likelihood of people learning a foreign language.
Note: If the argument holds the structure : Conclusion = If it's NOT X, then it's Y
then,
We must assume that - X and Y are the only two possibilities i.e. Nothing else can happen.
A. Becoming proficient in another language is not as useful as it once was.
This choice brings another factor i.e. It's neither the SKILL nor the KEENNESS, but the LESSER USE, that very fewer people learn the foreign language.
Thus, giving an alternate reason, the choice weakens the conclusion
B. Due to low health standards, the retirement age 40 years ago was lower than it is today leaving people over 45 with more spare time to learn languages.
Retirement age (any age) does not contribute anything in the argument.
C. Today, people have focused careers and do not need to acquire the knowledge of another language.
Similar to choice A. This choice brings another factor i.e. It's neither the SKILL nor the KEENNESS, but the LESSER USE, that very fewer people learn the foreign language. Thus, giving an alternate reason, the choice weakens the conclusion.
D. Because 40 years ago international travel was less accessible, learning languages had more appeal than it does today.
More appeal = more fascination.
Thus, 40 years ago, people had more fascination towards learning languages.
i.e. Being proficient in a foreign language now is not as fascinating as it once was.
This is just "rephrasing" the conclusion.
We need to strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the likelihood of any other factor ( i.e. other than skill and keenness).
E. Despite the far-reaching economic and social changes that may have occurred in the past forty years, learning a second language still provides all the advantages it once did.
Let's say - learning a second language does NOT have much ADVANTAGE ( i.e. a third factor), we can question the conclusion that it's the fascination why very few people learn new language. Thus, we can weaken the conclusion.
Now negate the statement.
learning a second language does still HAVE the ADVANTAGE - This means,we are eliminating the chance of third factor and hence are more closer to the conclusion that if it's NOT SKILL then it's KEENNESS (fascination) to learn for which we see very few people learning foreign language.
IMO, choice E is the best.
But I did not like choice E much as it says "ALL the advantages" . Even if learning foreign language provides similar advantages (ALL is not required), it's alright.
IMO E
40 years ago - People were twice as likely to learn a new language as they are today, even after the age of 50.
Today - Very few people learn a foreign language + Our linguistic skills have NOT deteriorated!
Conclusion: Being proficient in a foreign language is not as fascinating as it once was.
Prethink: The conclusion is based on the consideration that the reason for very few people learning a foreign language is solely that they are not keen to learn and not that people don't have the skill.
i.e. if it's NOT SKILL then it's KEENNESS to learn.
We must assume that there is no other factor for the reduced likelihood of people learning a foreign language.
Note: If the argument holds the structure : Conclusion = If it's NOT X, then it's Y
then,
We must assume that - X and Y are the only two possibilities i.e. Nothing else can happen.
A. Becoming proficient in another language is not as useful as it once was.
This choice brings another factor i.e. It's neither the SKILL nor the KEENNESS, but the LESSER USE, that very fewer people learn the foreign language.
Thus, giving an alternate reason, the choice weakens the conclusion
B. Due to low health standards, the retirement age 40 years ago was lower than it is today leaving people over 45 with more spare time to learn languages.
Retirement age (any age) does not contribute anything in the argument.
C. Today, people have focused careers and do not need to acquire the knowledge of another language.
Similar to choice A. This choice brings another factor i.e. It's neither the SKILL nor the KEENNESS, but the LESSER USE, that very fewer people learn the foreign language. Thus, giving an alternate reason, the choice weakens the conclusion.
D. Because 40 years ago international travel was less accessible, learning languages had more appeal than it does today.
More appeal = more fascination.
Thus, 40 years ago, people had more fascination towards learning languages.
i.e. Being proficient in a foreign language now is not as fascinating as it once was.
This is just "rephrasing" the conclusion.
We need to strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the likelihood of any other factor ( i.e. other than skill and keenness).
E. Despite the far-reaching economic and social changes that may have occurred in the past forty years, learning a second language still provides all the advantages it once did.
Let's say - learning a second language does NOT have much ADVANTAGE ( i.e. a third factor), we can question the conclusion that it's the fascination why very few people learn new language. Thus, we can weaken the conclusion.
Now negate the statement.
learning a second language does still HAVE the ADVANTAGE - This means,we are eliminating the chance of third factor and hence are more closer to the conclusion that if it's NOT SKILL then it's KEENNESS (fascination) to learn for which we see very few people learning foreign language.
IMO, choice E is the best.
But I did not like choice E much as it says "ALL the advantages" . Even if learning foreign language provides similar advantages (ALL is not required), it's alright.
IMO E
