College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale

Ans is (B).

Explanation:
A 5-star player can be rated at a lower star rating later on but never above a 5-star rating.
A 4-star rated player can be assigned 3 of lower star ratings (viz. 1-star, 2-star & 3-star) but only one star rating above what it was originally judged (viz. only 5-star)

Corrigendum for previous post: Explaination = Explanation

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Answer B
Stem:
1: Services rank players from 1 to 5
2: Player’s ranks averaged at the end and found that
5 rankers averaged to 4.46
4 rankers averaged to 3.98
3 rankers averaged to 3.11
Conclusion:
Rankings could not judge high end talent as well as it did the middle range talent.
(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions – Stem does not talk about positions

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
This option states that since a 5 star ranked player can never be ranked beyond 5, even if he plays better than he used to play when he was selected and there would be no room to compensate for his occasional weak performances. Since this option brings out the comparative flaw in the ranking this is the correct answer

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
– Stem does not talk about positions

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
– Stem does not talk about style of play

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates - strength training programs at different schools- not mentioned

Winners:

igloo and rajathpanta

Official Explanation:

Answer is B

This problem demonstrates a type of data flaw that you might not expect – which is exactly what the author of a hard question wants, for you to accept a faulty conclusion because you did not critically examine the data. What’s the flaw here? In a five-point scale, a predicted ‘4’ has multiple outcomes: a 5 (exceeding expectations and bringing the group average up), a 4 (meeting expectations, keeping the average the same), or a 3 or below (underperforming the prediction, bringing the average down). But a predicted ‘5’ can only live up to expectations – it cannot exceed them. Anything other than a 5 brings the expected average down. So while the experts’ misevaluations of a 4-star prospect might be balanced out by some 5s to counter 3s, their evaluations of a 5-star prospect all count in the same downward direction. Choice B exposes this flaw – the experts may have missed just as often with 3 and 4 star players, but because they could miss on either side of the predicted value the average is close to what they predicted.For your study, this is important – especially with the Integrated Reasoning section included, the GMAT will feature plenty of problems in which statistics are used improperly, to draw invalid conclusions. Be skeptical of statistics and train yourself to look for data flaws, both on the GMAT and in business in general.

Hi MartyMurray

Could you please provide a simplified explanation for this stem?

Thankyou !!

Why can't a player with 4 be marked at 5, there by increasing the average above 4. The avg is down for 4 and obviously 5 but increase in 3 star. Indicating that the player may be trying at different positions and scoring lesser as it's not his/her strength position.

The ranking service assigns players a 1- to 5-star rating when they enter college and then re-evaluates them after their college careers. The post-career averages are:

5-star players → final average of 4.46
4-star players → final average of 3.98
3-star players → final average of 3.11
The conclusion is that the service is worse at judging high-end talent than mid-tier talent because 5-star players drop more (from 5.00 to 4.46) than 4-star and 3-star players do.

What Could Be Wrong-
For this validation to be fair, the players should be able to both overperform and underperform their original rankings. However, since the scale is capped at 5 stars, 5-star players cannot exceed their rating, while lower-ranked players can improve significantly.

Thus, the biggest flaw is that the scale limits improvement at the top end, making it seem like 5-star players "drop" more than others, even if they perform at an elite level.


(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions.
This could be a minor issue, but it does not directly explain why 5-star players appear to drop more than others.
Incorrect

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking.
This is exactly the issue.
5-star players are already at the maximum rating, so even if they play at an elite level, they cannot improve beyond 5.00.
However, lower-rated players have room to improve.
This makes it appear as though 5-star players "drop" more, when in reality, they might still be performing well.
Correct Answer

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions.
- While position changes can affect rankings, this does not explain the systematic drop in 5-star ratings.
Incorrect

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles.
- Transfers might affect individual players' performance, but they do not explain the systematic pattern where 5-star players appear to drop more.
Incorrect

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates.
- This might affect individual player development, but it does not explain why the drop-off is disproportionately large for 5-star players.
Incorrect

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

The service has sought to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings by comparing them with post-career rankings.

The determination so arrived at about the accuracy of the initial rankings is the following:

the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range

The support for the conclusion is the following:

The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: The post-career averages for those players initially ranked 5-star were not as close to the initial rankings as the post career averages for those initially ranked 4-star or 3-star. So, the rankings service's initial rankings were not as accurate for the 5-star players as for the 4-star and 3-star players.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

This is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will accurately describe a flaw in the support for the conclusion.

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions.

The fact that players at some positions might be harder to judge than other players might mean that the ranking system does not always work well.

The issue with this choice is that we aren't seeking to find a problem with the ranking system. We are seeking to find a problem with the method of determining the accuracy of the ranking system.

Regardless of how effective the ranking of players at certain positions may be, that information does not indicate how effective the validation of the ranking system is.

After all, issues with ranking players and a problem with the approach for validating the ranking system are two different things.

Eliminate.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking.

This choice is interesting.

The conclusion is based on the fact that the average post career rankings of 5-star players are not as close to their initial rankings as the post career rankings of 4-star and 3-star players are to their initial rankings.

At the same time, what that reasoning misses is the situation involving players with 5-star initial rankings is not the same as those involving 4-star and 3-star initial rankings.

After all, if you have a group of players with 4-star or 3-star initial rankings and some of those players' rankings change, some of those players' ranking can go higher and some can go lower. The result of that outcome can be that, even if some of the initial rankings were not accurate, the average can stay about the same since some rankings prove inaccurate to the downside while some prove inaccurate to the upside.

In contrast, the only way the rankings of players initially ranked 5-star can move is down. After all, there's no ranking above 5-star.

So, if some 5-star initial rankings change, there's no offsetting change. Rather, they ALL DECREASE. So, if some 5-star rankings prove inaccurate, then the new average for players with 5-star initial rankings will be clearly lower than 5 stars.

As a result, even if the 5-star initial rankings are no less accurate than the 4-star and 3-star initial rankings, the 5-star initial rankings could seem less accurate.

Thus, because, as this choice says, the five-star scale does not allow the top-ranked players to overperform their initial rankings, the validation method may make it seem that the 5-star initial rankings are not as accurate as the 4-star and 3-start initial rankings even if, in reality, the 5-star initial rankings are just as accurate.

So, we've found the problem with the approach to validating the rankings.

Keep.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions.

This choice provides a possible reason why it may difficult to rank players.

At the same time, this choice does not indicate why there's a problem with the validation of the ranking system.

After all difficulty in ranking players is not a problem with the validation of the ranking system.

So, this choice is about something other than what we are looking for.

Eliminate.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles.

This choice provides a possible reason why it may difficult to rank players.

At the same time, this choice does not indicate why there's a problem with the validation of the ranking system.

After all difficulty in ranking players is not a problem with the validation of the ranking system.

So, this choice is about something other than what we are looking for.

Eliminate.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates.­

This choice provides a possible reason why it may difficult to rank players.

At the same time, this choice does not indicate why there's a problem with the validation of the ranking system.

After all difficulty in ranking players is not a problem with the validation of the ranking system.

So, this choice is about something other than what we are looking for.

Eliminate

Correct answer: B