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

 It is currently 18 Oct 2019, 16:56

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2013
Posts: 18
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Jan 2018, 17:52
Aussy2000 wrote:
jps245 wrote:
Hi chesstitans

If there was a possibility that gold was added to the samples before the 1992 test (meaning that the samples didn't contain gold naturally, that someone added gold to them), then there is another possible explanation for the difference in measurements between 1992 and 1997.

Since this gives another possible explanation for the result, you can't conclude from this that the method MUST have been inaccurate. In the case in which someone added gold to the sample for the 1992 test, the method could have still been accurate (if someone added gold, then the soil actually did contain that much gold and was measured correctly).

Therefore, to conclude that the method must have been inaccurate, you have to assume that no one added gold to the sample for the 1992 test. Or else, there could have been another cause for the difference.

Hope this helps

So I guess C is the answer?

Sent from my SM-N910C using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Originally posted by jps245 on 08 Jan 2018, 17:45.
Last edited by jps245 on 08 Jan 2018, 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2018, 00:03
Aussy2000 wrote:
jps245 wrote:
Hi chesstitans

If there was a possibility that gold was added to the samples before the 1992 test (meaning that the samples didn't contain gold naturally, that someone added gold to them), then there is another possible explanation for the difference in measurements between 1992 and 1997.

Since this gives another possible explanation for the result, you can't conclude from this that the method MUST have been inaccurate. In the case in which someone added gold to the sample for the 1992 test, the method could have still been accurate (if someone added gold, then the soil actually did contain that much gold and was measured correctly).

Therefore, to conclude that the method must have been inaccurate, you have to assume that no one added gold to the sample for the 1992 test. Or else, there could have been another cause for the difference.

Hope this helps

So I guess C is the answer?

Sent from my SM-N910C using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

it is E. He did include the answer in his previous post.
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2018, 03:27
[quote="nikunjbali21"]E

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app[/quote

it seems you are a new member, so you should not forget to time your practice. Doing so will help you much.

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 23 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by