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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
03 Jul 2020, 08:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
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:
33% (01:41) correct
67%
(01:46)
wrong
based on 325
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A research foundation based in Montpelier, Vermont announces a reward for a specific biotechnology application. The deadline passes with no applicant having earned the reward. The foundation director decides to ask the board to approve a doubling of the prize money to $1,000,000 to increase the probability that a successful application will come in.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the director’s rationale for the prize’s increase?
A. $1,000,000 would still make this only the second largest prize in the field.
B. At $500,000, the prize did not, in fact, attract a single application.
C. The doubling of the reward would merely attract more, and more sophisticated, bogus applications than the grant already attracts.
D. Most of the best-qualified researchers in this field are already well-funded and paid.
E. Years ago, researchers discovered physical barriers to the specified application that no one has been able to overcome.
Source : 800score
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the director’s rationale for the prize’s increase?
A. $1,000,000 would still make this only the second largest prize in the field.
B. At $500,000, the prize did not, in fact, attract a single application.
C. The doubling of the reward would merely attract more, and more sophisticated, bogus applications than the grant already attracts.
D. Most of the best-qualified researchers in this field are already well-funded and paid.
E. Years ago, researchers discovered physical barriers to the specified application that no one has been able to overcome.
Source : 800score
Target4bschool
Joined: 29 Dec 2019
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 61
Given Kudos: 181
Schools: IE MiM (Sep 21 Start) (A)
03 Jul 2020, 10:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. $1,000,000 would still make this only the second largest prize in the field.
Still it's the second largest prize - But that doesn't mean the probability of applications will remain the same.
Let's say you didn't apply before because you thought 500k was not worth it, but now 1 million seems worth to find the solution. So, you may apply because of the increase in the amount of the prize.
Another e.g. previously the amount for the first prize was $1.2 million. So, people were applying for $1.2 million application instead of $500k. But now, the prize (1 million) is closer to 1.2 million. So, there is a chance of increase in the successful applications.
B. At $500,000, the prize did not, in fact, attract a single application.
Doesn't mean this time no application will come.
C. The doubling of the reward would merely attract more, and more sophisticated, bogus applications than the grant already attracts.
Because conclusion talks about successful applications. So, though the prize money is doubled but there will be no successful application, so the situation remains the same. So, let's keep this.
D. Most of the best-qualified researchers in this field are already well-funded and paid.
But someone may want to earn more, so that person may still apply. The definition of well-funded vary from person to person.
E. Years ago, researchers discovered physical barriers to the specified application that no one has been able to overcome.
That was years ago. The very aim of the research is to find that solution, i.e., how to overcome those barriers. The previous prize wasn't able to attract the successful applications. But the increase in the prize may attract someone to find the solution of this problem.
So, I will go with C. Please share your thoughts.
Still it's the second largest prize - But that doesn't mean the probability of applications will remain the same.
Let's say you didn't apply before because you thought 500k was not worth it, but now 1 million seems worth to find the solution. So, you may apply because of the increase in the amount of the prize.
Another e.g. previously the amount for the first prize was $1.2 million. So, people were applying for $1.2 million application instead of $500k. But now, the prize (1 million) is closer to 1.2 million. So, there is a chance of increase in the successful applications.
B. At $500,000, the prize did not, in fact, attract a single application.
Doesn't mean this time no application will come.
C. The doubling of the reward would merely attract more, and more sophisticated, bogus applications than the grant already attracts.
Because conclusion talks about successful applications. So, though the prize money is doubled but there will be no successful application, so the situation remains the same. So, let's keep this.
D. Most of the best-qualified researchers in this field are already well-funded and paid.
But someone may want to earn more, so that person may still apply. The definition of well-funded vary from person to person.
E. Years ago, researchers discovered physical barriers to the specified application that no one has been able to overcome.
That was years ago. The very aim of the research is to find that solution, i.e., how to overcome those barriers. The previous prize wasn't able to attract the successful applications. But the increase in the prize may attract someone to find the solution of this problem.
So, I will go with C. Please share your thoughts.
yashikaaggarwal
Senior Moderator - Masters Forum
Joined: 19 Jan 2020
Last visit: 17 Jul 2025
Posts: 3,086
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,510
Location: India
Schools: Cranfield (A) Warwick MiM "23 (M)
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Internet and New Media)
03 Jul 2020, 11:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
I second that,
The concluding line of the passage is that, "The foundation director decides to ask the board to approve a doubling of the prize money to $1,000,000 to increase the probability that a successful application will come in."
The application prize scope is increased in hope to attract more participants.
The statement weakening the argument is;
A. $1,000,000 would still make this only the second largest prize in the field. (Its not necessary that its the second largest prize so that will attract more participants, no Stats is given) (Out of scope)
B. At $500,000, the prize did not, in fact, attract a single application. (Can be the weakening argument as if 5,00,000 half of the double prize OE initial prize didn't attracted a single participant its not necessary that 1,000,000 will.)
C. The doubling of the reward would merely attract more, and more sophisticated, bogus applications than the grant already attracts. (Even if bogus applications are received not of participants will actually increase strengthening the passage) (Incorrect)
D. Most of the best-qualified researchers in this field are already well-funded and paid.(So they will not participate in competition just because they are well paid, not logical inference neither stated in passage) (Incorrect)
E. Years ago, researchers discovered physical barriers to the specified application that no one has been able to overcome.(No physical barrier have been introduced by the passage, hence out of scope)
IMO B
Posted from my mobile device
The concluding line of the passage is that, "The foundation director decides to ask the board to approve a doubling of the prize money to $1,000,000 to increase the probability that a successful application will come in."
The application prize scope is increased in hope to attract more participants.
The statement weakening the argument is;
A. $1,000,000 would still make this only the second largest prize in the field. (Its not necessary that its the second largest prize so that will attract more participants, no Stats is given) (Out of scope)
B. At $500,000, the prize did not, in fact, attract a single application. (Can be the weakening argument as if 5,00,000 half of the double prize OE initial prize didn't attracted a single participant its not necessary that 1,000,000 will.)
C. The doubling of the reward would merely attract more, and more sophisticated, bogus applications than the grant already attracts. (Even if bogus applications are received not of participants will actually increase strengthening the passage) (Incorrect)
D. Most of the best-qualified researchers in this field are already well-funded and paid.(So they will not participate in competition just because they are well paid, not logical inference neither stated in passage) (Incorrect)
E. Years ago, researchers discovered physical barriers to the specified application that no one has been able to overcome.(No physical barrier have been introduced by the passage, hence out of scope)
IMO B
Posted from my mobile device
