Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 00:11 |
It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 00:11 |
|
|
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
12 Feb 2020, 02:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
60% (01:39) correct
40%
(01:56)
wrong
based on 717
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A survey of a group of people between the ages of 75 and 80 found that those who regularly played the card game bridge tended to have better short-term memory than those who did not play bridge. It was originally concluded from this that playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory. However, it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play.
In countering the original conclusion the reasoning above uses which one of the following techniques?
(A) challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed
(B) conceding the suggested relationship between playing bridge and short-term memory, but questioning whether any conclusion about appropriate therapy can be drawn
(C) arguing that the original conclusion relied on an inaccurate understanding of the motives that the people surveyed have for playing bridge
(D) providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the original conclusion was based
(E) describing a flaw in the reasoning on which the original conclusion was based
In countering the original conclusion the reasoning above uses which one of the following techniques?
(A) challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed
(B) conceding the suggested relationship between playing bridge and short-term memory, but questioning whether any conclusion about appropriate therapy can be drawn
(C) arguing that the original conclusion relied on an inaccurate understanding of the motives that the people surveyed have for playing bridge
(D) providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the original conclusion was based
(E) describing a flaw in the reasoning on which the original conclusion was based
12 Feb 2020, 21:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise: A survey of a group of people between the ages of 75 and 80 found that those who regularly played the card game bridge tended to have better short-term memory than those who did not play bridge.
Previous conclusion: playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory.
New conclusion/counter-conclusion: it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play.
To answer this question, one needs to analyze the two conclusions that were drawn from the premise.
From the premise, the previous conclusion established that playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory. Basically, the first conclusion is establishing a cause and effect relationship between playing bridge and the ability of older people to develop and retain memory. The first conclusion established the cause as: playing bridge and the effect as: the ability of older people to develop and retain memory.
The second conclusion, on the other hand, reverses the cause and effect relationship in the first conclusion by stating that it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play.
The second conclusion established the cause as: older people with good short-term memory and the effect as: more inclined to play bridge.
Based on the above, we can clearly see that the author provides an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the first conclusion was drawn.
(A) challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed
Incorrect. The author did not challenge the representativeness of the sample surveyed, he merely established an alternative hypothesis based on the given information in the premise.
(B) conceding the suggested relationship between playing bridge and short-term memory, but questioning whether any conclusion about appropriate therapy can be drawn.
Incorrect. The author did not concede to any relationship already established between playing bridge and short-term memory. Instead, he reversed the causality relationship established in the first conclusion.
(C) arguing that the original conclusion relied on an inaccurate understanding of the motives that the people surveyed have for playing bridge
Incorrect. The author did reverse the causal relationship in the first conclusion, but the author did not say that the original conclusion relied upon an inaccurate understanding of the motives of the people playing bridge.
(D) providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the original conclusion was based.
This is the right answer and this is in line with the reasoning provided above.
(E) describing a flaw in the reasoning on which the original conclusion was based
Incorrect. The author did not describe a flaw in the argumentation. All that the author did was that the author established an alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis arrived at in the previous conclusion.
Previous conclusion: playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory.
New conclusion/counter-conclusion: it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play.
To answer this question, one needs to analyze the two conclusions that were drawn from the premise.
From the premise, the previous conclusion established that playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory. Basically, the first conclusion is establishing a cause and effect relationship between playing bridge and the ability of older people to develop and retain memory. The first conclusion established the cause as: playing bridge and the effect as: the ability of older people to develop and retain memory.
The second conclusion, on the other hand, reverses the cause and effect relationship in the first conclusion by stating that it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play.
The second conclusion established the cause as: older people with good short-term memory and the effect as: more inclined to play bridge.
Based on the above, we can clearly see that the author provides an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the first conclusion was drawn.
(A) challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed
Incorrect. The author did not challenge the representativeness of the sample surveyed, he merely established an alternative hypothesis based on the given information in the premise.
(B) conceding the suggested relationship between playing bridge and short-term memory, but questioning whether any conclusion about appropriate therapy can be drawn.
Incorrect. The author did not concede to any relationship already established between playing bridge and short-term memory. Instead, he reversed the causality relationship established in the first conclusion.
(C) arguing that the original conclusion relied on an inaccurate understanding of the motives that the people surveyed have for playing bridge
Incorrect. The author did reverse the causal relationship in the first conclusion, but the author did not say that the original conclusion relied upon an inaccurate understanding of the motives of the people playing bridge.
(D) providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the original conclusion was based.
This is the right answer and this is in line with the reasoning provided above.
(E) describing a flaw in the reasoning on which the original conclusion was based
Incorrect. The author did not describe a flaw in the argumentation. All that the author did was that the author established an alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis arrived at in the previous conclusion.
12 May 2024, 02:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja - Can you explain why option E is wrong here?
In the first conclusion, it is said that playing game increased their short term memory. However, in the second conclusion it is said that people who already had good short term memory enjoyed playing that game. So, isnt it a flaw in their reasoning? Cause led to the effect --1st conclusion. In the second conclusion it is actually effect led to the cause?
In the first conclusion, it is said that playing game increased their short term memory. However, in the second conclusion it is said that people who already had good short term memory enjoyed playing that game. So, isnt it a flaw in their reasoning? Cause led to the effect --1st conclusion. In the second conclusion it is actually effect led to the cause?
14 May 2024, 15:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
A survey of a group of people between the ages of 75 and 80 found that those who regularly played the card game bridge tended to have better short-term memory than those who did not play bridge. - Correlation.
It was originally concluded from this that playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory. - Hypothesis 1. Some cause-and-effect relationships.
However, it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play. - Conclusion. Alternate Hypothesis. Opposite cause and effect.
In countering the original conclusion the reasoning above uses which one of the following techniques?
(A) challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed - No.
(B) conceding the suggested relationship between playing bridge and short-term memory, but questioning whether any conclusion about appropriate therapy can be drawn - No.
(C) arguing that the original conclusion relied on an inaccurate understanding of the motives that the people surveyed have for playing bridge - No. "motives that the people surveyed " is out of scope.
(D) providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the original conclusion was based - ok.
(E) describing a flaw in the reasoning on which the original conclusion was based. - Had option E been correct, the reasoning would have looked like this: "The conclusion is flawed because it assumes a cause-effect relationship based solely on correlation. This could involve pointing out that just because two things occur together (bridge playing and better memory) does not mean one causes the other, without considering other variables that might influence this relationship, such as pre-existing cognitive abilities or a selection bias where individuals with better memory might choose to play bridge." The reasoning is nothing like this. It doesn't highlight that it's flawed bla blah..it just shares the alternate hypothesis.
A survey of a group of people between the ages of 75 and 80 found that those who regularly played the card game bridge tended to have better short-term memory than those who did not play bridge. - Correlation.
It was originally concluded from this that playing bridge can help older people to retain and develop their memory. - Hypothesis 1. Some cause-and-effect relationships.
However, it may well be that bridge is simply a more enjoyable game for people who already have good short-term memory and who are thus more inclined to play. - Conclusion. Alternate Hypothesis. Opposite cause and effect.
In countering the original conclusion the reasoning above uses which one of the following techniques?
(A) challenging the representativeness of the sample surveyed - No.
(B) conceding the suggested relationship between playing bridge and short-term memory, but questioning whether any conclusion about appropriate therapy can be drawn - No.
(C) arguing that the original conclusion relied on an inaccurate understanding of the motives that the people surveyed have for playing bridge - No. "motives that the people surveyed " is out of scope.
(D) providing an alternative hypothesis to explain the data on which the original conclusion was based - ok.
(E) describing a flaw in the reasoning on which the original conclusion was based. - Had option E been correct, the reasoning would have looked like this: "The conclusion is flawed because it assumes a cause-effect relationship based solely on correlation. This could involve pointing out that just because two things occur together (bridge playing and better memory) does not mean one causes the other, without considering other variables that might influence this relationship, such as pre-existing cognitive abilities or a selection bias where individuals with better memory might choose to play bridge." The reasoning is nothing like this. It doesn't highlight that it's flawed bla blah..it just shares the alternate hypothesis.
