GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Apr 2019, 12:08

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 279
A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Jul 2009, 00:49
3
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

85% (01:54) correct 15% (02:35) wrong based on 218 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

2. A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity tours with playing tours led to problems, so she stopped combining the two. She no longer allows bookstore appearances and playing in competition to occur in the same city within the same trip. This week she is traveling to London to play in a major competition, so during her stay in London she will not be making any publicity appearances at any bookstore in London.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the passage?
(A) Wherever there is an Acme Bugkiller, many wasps are killed. The Z family garden has an Acme Bugkiller, so any wasps remaining in the garden will soon be killed.
(B) The only times that the hospital’s emergency room staff attends to relatively less serious emergencies are times when there is no critical emergency to attend to. On Monday night the emergency room staff attended to a series of fairly minor emergencies, so there must not have been any critical emergencies to take care of at the time.
(C) Tomato plants require hot summers to thrive. Farms in the cool summers of country Y probably do not have thriving tomato plants.
(E) Butter knives are not sharp. Q was not murdered with a sharp blade, so suspect X’s butter knife may have been the murder weapon.

The OA is

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 636
Location: Cambridge, MA

Show Tags

26 Jan 2010, 20:07
7
What's the source on this question? Parallelism questions like this, though common on the LSAT, are very rare on the GMAT.

That being said, the key is understanding the question type. With parallelism questions, we usually can focus on one part of the argument, and that will eliminate several wrong answers, if not all of them.

This argument builds it conclusion through a chain of minor sub-conclusions; we should focus at the end. In this case, the final step leading to the ultimate conclusion can be paraphrased as "she's playing, so she's not going to a bookstore"; or, more abstractly, "X, therefore not Y."

Let's look at the conclusions:

(A) Using bugkiller, therefore wasps die ---> X, therefore Y. Not parallel
(B) Minor emergencies, therefore no major emergencies ---> X, therefore not Y. Could be.
(C) Probably not growing in cool weather ---> Not X, therefore probably not Y. Not parallel
(D) Studying, therefore jobs ---> X, therefore Y. Not parallel
(E) Not a sharp blade, therefore might be X's knife ---> Not X, therefore possibly Y. Not parallel.

We don't even need to consider the initial premises to eliminate four inconsistent answers, and realize that (B) is correct.
_________________
General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 133
Re: A well-known sports figure  [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Jul 2009, 02:24
B: Follows the original question in
A (NOT B) and (NOT A) B
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 279
A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jan 2010, 10:07
A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity tours with playing tours led to problems, so she stopped combining the two. She no longer allows bookstore appearances and playing in competition to occur in the same city within the same trip. This week she is traveling to London to play in a major competition, so during her stay in London she will not be making any publicity appearances at any bookstore in London.
Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the passage?
(A) Wherever there is an Acme Bugkiller, many wasps are killed. The Z family garden has an Acme Bugkiller, so any wasps remaining in the garden will soon be killed.
(B) The only times that the hospital’s emergency room staff attends to relatively less serious emergencies are times when there is no critical emergency to attend to. On Monday night the emergency room staff attended to a series of fairly minor emergencies, so there must not have been any critical emergencies to take care of at the time.
(C) Tomato plants require hot summers to thrive. Farms in the cool summers of country Y probably do not have thriving tomato plants.
(E) Butter knives are not sharp. Q was not murdered with a sharp blade, so suspect X’s butter knife may have been the murder weapon.

Oa is
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 11
Re: A well-known sports figure  [#permalink]

Show Tags

Updated on: 29 Jun 2011, 06:50
X and Y do not coexist
X will occur so Y cannot.

The only option that follows this structure is option B

Originally posted by StevenSzekeres on 28 Jun 2011, 07:22.
Last edited by StevenSzekeres on 29 Jun 2011, 06:50, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2011
Posts: 147
Re: A well-known sports figure  [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 07:45
1
getmydream wrote:
A n B are close
why not A?

ok this is a big trick gmat does on us

A says : Wherever there is an Acme Bugkiller, many wasps are killed

many means 80/100 90/100 possibly 100/100

so A (bug killer ) causes B (many wasps die)

the reminder of the argument says
The Z family garden has an Acme Bugkiller, so any wasps remaining in the garden will soon be killed

A (bug killer) causes C (ALL wasps die) which is not what we need to prove..

we need to prove if A causes B, and if B happened, then it was caused by B

option B maintains this relation..
Senior Manager
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 451
Re: A well-known sports figure  [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2011, 00:06
1
+1 for B.

Good explanation vikas... A subtle comment :

Many can even mean 40/100 .. Many is different from most. Many just means sizeable (may not be majority). Most means majority.

Crick
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1100
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 May 2012, 16:16
Thanks for that explanation Eli!

However, how could we be sure that the chosen part to analyze and compare with the other choices is correct?

In addition, I think this type of similar reasoning question of the LSAT doesn't look like the similar reasoning questions of the GMAT. So, we should not be worry with this question, right?
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 126
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 May 2012, 21:23
1
The logic in the arguement is as follows:

If X then not Y
If Not X then Y

Only Option B shows such relation.

Thank you so much for such a great question.
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 102
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT Date: 07-23-2012
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 May 2012, 11:44
Either X or Y situation. Option B states the same.
_________________
FOCUS..this is all I need!

Ku-Do!
Manager
Affiliations: Project Management Professional (PMP)
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 135
Location: New Delhi, India
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jun 2012, 10:42
Thanks Mr. Eli for such a wonderful explanation
_________________
Best
Vaibhav

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, Thanks
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 550
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jun 2012, 01:51
Great explanation from Eli,

Can you give us some tricks and tips to reach the answer of this question.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 196
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jun 2012, 08:32
I used fairly simple logic to get this. Thus: events A and B don't 'mix' therefore if event A occurs then event B does not.

Only answer B mimics the style of reasoning.

Cheers.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 636
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Jun 2012, 20:25
1
tuanquang269 wrote:
Great explanation from Eli,

Can you give us some tricks and tips to reach the answer of this question.

I could go into more depht...but I'm not sure how helpful it would be.

The basic strategy for this type of problem is to pick one piece (usually the conclusion) of the argument, rule out answer choices that don't match it in structure and logic, then if necessary pick a different part of the argument to kill the rest of the remaining wrong answers. The detailed strategy? Well, if you were studying for the LSAT, I'd go into a lot more depth, but this question type is so rare on the GMAT (I counted *0* on a quick scan of the first 100 OG CR questions) that I would feel guilty for distracting you from common, relevant question types if I spent any more word count!
_________________
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 126
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Jun 2012, 21:30
Relation:
If X then not Y.
If Y then not X.

Only B shows such relation.
Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 124
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jul 2012, 03:00
+ 1 B
It was a really great explanation from Eli
_________________
Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 285
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jul 2012, 08:33
Another interesting tip I read in the LSAT book. In parallel reasoning type of questions, you can rule out those statements which do not match the original intent.
So, those answer choices which replace let's say a WILL in the original question with a MAY or a POSSIBLY, can be ruled out. degrees of certainty gotta match.

Using this rule, we can straight away narrow down to A,B and D.
C - uses probably
E - may have been

The usage of negatives is what makes the answers so confusing. You have to be careful not use die as NO WASPS. I used this logic and I chose A.
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1070
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Oct 2012, 07:30
Well I think that there is a debate between A and B. It took me a little more than 5 minutes to find the correct reasoning.
Why A is incorrect?
Because of invalid reasoning. Whenever x, many y. Then how is it possible that x happens and all Y perish.
SIMILARLY E also has invalid reasoning.
Why B is correct?
My take from stimulus.
When X and Y combines, z happens. So F decided not to merge X and Y. therefore when she does x, it gradually means that she is not doing Y.
My take from option B:
Z does p only when there is no Q. On Monday night, z did p so there was no q.

I hope its clear.
Cheers
_________________
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Posts: 45
Schools: IE '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V46
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jan 2013, 22:27
If X then not Y
If Not X then Y

I agree with B
Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 10
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 May 2013, 13:12
KapTeacherEli wrote:

Well, if you were studying for the LSAT, I'd go into a lot more depth, but this question type is so rare on the GMAT (I counted *0* on a quick scan of the first 100 OG CR questions) that I would feel guilty for distracting you from common, relevant question types if I spent any more word count!

Great explanation for the question Eli And thanks for pointing out these type of questions are very rare in GMAT. I see them as a waste of time
Re: A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity   [#permalink] 19 May 2013, 13:12

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by