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 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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.
24 Jun 2025, 01:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
56% (02:07) correct
44%
(01:55)
wrong
based on 133
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
An experienced education researcher asserts that offering extra credit in exchange for students completing end-of-semester course evaluations cannot reliably measure genuine enthusiasm for the subject. Instead, she argues, those who complete the evaluations—motivated by the promise of extra credit—tend to give higher ratings but reveal no substantive increase in their long-term mastery or curiosity about advanced study in the field. Therefore, she concludes, this method merely captures the students’ desire to boost their grades, rather than gauging authentic academic interest.
Which of the following best describes the researcher’s method of reasoning?
A. She shows that one can attain the anticipated result without possessing the underlying quality, thereby undermining the notion that the evaluations capture it.
B. She claims any evaluation mechanism granting academic incentives is bound to produce distorted measurements.
C. She draws exclusively on a small group of students’ anecdotal remarks about why they completed the surveys.
D. She presumes that any reported appreciation for a course must directly correspond to improved performance.
E. She concludes that educational institutions purposely manipulate their data to feature a falsely elevated level of student engagement.
Which of the following best describes the researcher’s method of reasoning?
A. She shows that one can attain the anticipated result without possessing the underlying quality, thereby undermining the notion that the evaluations capture it.
B. She claims any evaluation mechanism granting academic incentives is bound to produce distorted measurements.
C. She draws exclusively on a small group of students’ anecdotal remarks about why they completed the surveys.
D. She presumes that any reported appreciation for a course must directly correspond to improved performance.
E. She concludes that educational institutions purposely manipulate their data to feature a falsely elevated level of student engagement.
24 Jun 2025, 09:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. She shows that one can attain the anticipated result without possessing the underlying quality, thereby undermining the notion that the evaluations capture it.
=Nothing states about having underlying quality for anything
B. She claims any evaluation mechanism granting academic incentives is bound to produce distorted measurements.
=Correct
C. She draws exclusively on a small group of students’ anecdotal remarks about why they completed the surveys.
=Not about small groups
D. She presumes that any reported appreciation for a course must directly correspond to improved performance.
=Nothing about improved performance
E. She concludes that educational institutions purposely manipulate their data to feature a falsely elevated level of student engagement.
=No mentioning of institutions manipulating data
=Nothing states about having underlying quality for anything
B. She claims any evaluation mechanism granting academic incentives is bound to produce distorted measurements.
=Correct
C. She draws exclusively on a small group of students’ anecdotal remarks about why they completed the surveys.
=Not about small groups
D. She presumes that any reported appreciation for a course must directly correspond to improved performance.
=Nothing about improved performance
E. She concludes that educational institutions purposely manipulate their data to feature a falsely elevated level of student engagement.
=No mentioning of institutions manipulating data
24 Jun 2025, 10:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. She shows that one can attain the anticipated result without possessing the underlying quality, thereby undermining the notion that the evaluations capture it.
✅ Correct.
This perfectly captures the logic:
Students give positive evaluations (the result),
But they may not have real enthusiasm (the quality),
Therefore, the measure is not reliable.
B. She claims any evaluation mechanism granting academic incentives is bound to produce distorted measurements.
→ Too strong and absolute. The researcher doesn’t generalize to all mechanisms — just critiques this specific one.
C. She draws exclusively on a small group of students’ anecdotal remarks about why they completed the surveys.
→ Not mentioned. There’s no reference to anecdotes or limited data — this misrepresents her method.
D. She presumes that any reported appreciation for a course must directly correspond to improved performance.
→ No. She actually distinguishes between reported appreciation (in evaluations) and long-term learning outcomes — she's showing they don’t align, not assuming they must.
E. She concludes that educational institutions purposely manipulate their data to feature a falsely elevated level of student engagement.
→ Out of scope. No claim of intentional manipulation by institutions is made — her focus is on the incentive's effect on student behavior.
[/b]
✅ Correct.
This perfectly captures the logic:
Students give positive evaluations (the result),
But they may not have real enthusiasm (the quality),
Therefore, the measure is not reliable.
B. She claims any evaluation mechanism granting academic incentives is bound to produce distorted measurements.
→ Too strong and absolute. The researcher doesn’t generalize to all mechanisms — just critiques this specific one.
C. She draws exclusively on a small group of students’ anecdotal remarks about why they completed the surveys.
→ Not mentioned. There’s no reference to anecdotes or limited data — this misrepresents her method.
D. She presumes that any reported appreciation for a course must directly correspond to improved performance.
→ No. She actually distinguishes between reported appreciation (in evaluations) and long-term learning outcomes — she's showing they don’t align, not assuming they must.
E. She concludes that educational institutions purposely manipulate their data to feature a falsely elevated level of student engagement.
→ Out of scope. No claim of intentional manipulation by institutions is made — her focus is on the incentive's effect on student behavior.
[/b]
