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.
Sep 0710:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite 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/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 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. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
31 Oct 2023, 15:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
sk05
I see what you mean about E, but we don't know that kids choose to become farmers because those around them are farmers. It seems more likely that these kids come from farming families, in which farming may have been the plan all along. Also, E is telling us that this farming aspect may be warping the data around college attendance, but it doesn't tell us whether families will be choosing between urban private schools and rural public schools. Maybe someone who is considering private school is NOT in a rural part of the county, and would not send their kid to a rural public school.
The problem with D is that it isn't enough to overcome what we know--that fewer kids from public schools go to college. Despite the sports, public schools have a lower college attendance rate, so it still seems that private schools have an advantage. Maybe they do more of other activities (debate team, internships, etc.) that increase kids' chances even more. In general, beware of any use of ONE comparison ("We have more sports, and those are good!") to establish or strengthen/weaken a definitive evaluation ("Our school is better for getting into college.") What if I said that movie theater popcorn was better for you than broccoli because it has more protein, which is important for your body? The premise is true, but the conclusion, sadly, is not.
I see what you mean about E, but we don't know that kids choose to become farmers because those around them are farmers. It seems more likely that these kids come from farming families, in which farming may have been the plan all along. Also, E is telling us that this farming aspect may be warping the data around college attendance, but it doesn't tell us whether families will be choosing between urban private schools and rural public schools. Maybe someone who is considering private school is NOT in a rural part of the county, and would not send their kid to a rural public school.
The problem with D is that it isn't enough to overcome what we know--that fewer kids from public schools go to college. Despite the sports, public schools have a lower college attendance rate, so it still seems that private schools have an advantage. Maybe they do more of other activities (debate team, internships, etc.) that increase kids' chances even more. In general, beware of any use of ONE comparison ("We have more sports, and those are good!") to establish or strengthen/weaken a definitive evaluation ("Our school is better for getting into college.") What if I said that movie theater popcorn was better for you than broccoli because it has more protein, which is important for your body? The premise is true, but the conclusion, sadly, is not.
17 Nov 2024, 01:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
DmitryFarber
Hi DmitryFarber,
I understand why other answers are irrelevant, but i can't understand why (E) can be the answer:
Private high schools: 90/100 go to college
Public high schools: 65/100 go to college: ''means other 35 do something else or nothing''
(E) merely says what other 30 PEOPLE from Public high school do.
How does it weaken the argument that ''if parents in the county wish to increase the likelihood that their children will attend college, they should send them to private rather than public schools.''
Maybe, if these 30 PEOPLE get admitted to Private school, they MAY attend College, right?
Question doesn't give us any hint that those 30% are from Farming family and that they are gonna choose FARMING over COLLEFGE, be it private or public school.
17 Nov 2024, 08:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Contropositive
What you're missing is that this new data tells us that there is a difference between the two groups predates their entry to high school. This is not a random, controlled study! About 1/3 of the kids at public schools planned to go into farming all along because they were from rural, farming communities, not because of the school they attended. This suggests that their choice of school may never have been the issue, and sending them to private school may not make a difference. Sure, there's a possibility that it would, but this weakens that possibility. Like any weakener, that's all it needs to do--it doesn't need to definitively disprove the conclusion.
In any case, this is a common pattern for causal arguments. If we see X and Y correlated and the author concludes that X causes Y, we can weaken by finding some other causal factor that is also correlated with X. So if runners live longer and the author thinks running causes longevity, we can weaken by finding some other longevity-producing trait that causes people to be runners in the first place (e.g. some gene that promotes cardiovascular health). Or we can find that NOT doing X is correlated with something else that makes Y less likely. For instance, maybe people who don't like to run are more likely to have genes that also promote life-threatening diseases. In that case, maybe running doesn't make you live longer--maybe it's just about being healthy enough to run in the first place. That's like what we have in the original argument. Maybe it's not that private school makes you more likely to go to college. Maybe people who DON'T go to private school are just more likely to be people who don't WANT to go to college in the first place.
What you're missing is that this new data tells us that there is a difference between the two groups predates their entry to high school. This is not a random, controlled study! About 1/3 of the kids at public schools planned to go into farming all along because they were from rural, farming communities, not because of the school they attended. This suggests that their choice of school may never have been the issue, and sending them to private school may not make a difference. Sure, there's a possibility that it would, but this weakens that possibility. Like any weakener, that's all it needs to do--it doesn't need to definitively disprove the conclusion.
In any case, this is a common pattern for causal arguments. If we see X and Y correlated and the author concludes that X causes Y, we can weaken by finding some other causal factor that is also correlated with X. So if runners live longer and the author thinks running causes longevity, we can weaken by finding some other longevity-producing trait that causes people to be runners in the first place (e.g. some gene that promotes cardiovascular health). Or we can find that NOT doing X is correlated with something else that makes Y less likely. For instance, maybe people who don't like to run are more likely to have genes that also promote life-threatening diseases. In that case, maybe running doesn't make you live longer--maybe it's just about being healthy enough to run in the first place. That's like what we have in the original argument. Maybe it's not that private school makes you more likely to go to college. Maybe people who DON'T go to private school are just more likely to be people who don't WANT to go to college in the first place.
