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

 It is currently 21 Oct 2019, 23:10

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

Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2017
Posts: 293
Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Feb 2017, 03:10
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:14) correct 32% (01:26) wrong based on 368 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Therefore they likely read much more than we do today.

Which of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. Many of the books published a century ago were of low literary quality.

B. On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.

C. The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.

D. On the average, books today cost slightly less is relation to other goods than they did a century ago.

E. One of the popular diversions of a century ago was horse racing.
Director
Joined: 21 Mar 2016
Posts: 504
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 May 2017, 22:58
looks like B...let me try to explain
A - quality is irrelevant
B- only if people have leisure time, they will read more,,,what if they dnt have leisure time... clearly weakens.
C- number is irrelevant
D - cost is also out of scope
E- looks convincing,,but less convincing than B
Retired Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1428
Location: India
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 May 2017, 23:04
1
Main argument is that: people in past likely read much more Because they had very few diversions to amuse them in comparison to today.

A - eliminated because argument doesn't mention anything about quality of books effecting the reading.

C - just because more books are sold today, doesn't mean that people today read more. Population today is much more than it was 100 years ago, so this point is refuted.

D - eliminated because the author doesn't mention 'cost of reading' being a valid cause. This is about having a diversion or amusement, not related to the cost of the diversion

E - even if horse racing was popular back then so what? That is just one diversion of the past, but we don't know whether there were many more diversions then or not. Eliminated

Only B seems correct, because if people back then had considerably less leisure time than we have today, then they were less likely to engage in their available diversions - whether those be reading or something else. Hence B answer
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 329
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2017, 07:23
vikasp99 wrote:
Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Therefore they likely read much more than we do today.

Which of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. Many of the books published a century ago were of low literary quality.

B. On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.

C. The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.

D. On the average, books today cost slightly less is relation to other goods than they did a century ago.

E. One of the popular diversions of a century ago was horse racing.

the correlation between leisure time and reading for amusement isnt given straightaway. Even if they had less leisure time ,they could have read more than we do today. There isnt a better answer but i feel this question isn't a sound one. Experts Please let me know your thoughts on this one.
Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Posts: 117
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V26
GPA: 3.59
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Jul 2017, 09:05
goforgmat - Yup I agree with you. B doesn't seem right to me as well
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 202
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: ISB '21 (S)
GPA: 4
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jan 2018, 04:18
amanvermagmat wrote:
Main argument is that: people in past likely read much more Because they had very few diversions to amuse them in comparison to today.

A - eliminated because argument doesn't mention anything about quality of books effecting the reading.

C - just because more books are sold today, doesn't mean that people today read more. Population today is much more than it was 100 years ago, so this point is refuted.

D - eliminated because the author doesn't mention 'cost of reading' being a valid cause. This is about having a diversion or amusement, not related to the cost of the diversion

E - even if horse racing was popular back then so what? That is just one diversion of the past, but we don't know whether there were many more diversions then or not. Eliminated

Only B seems correct, because if people back then had considerably less leisure time than we have today, then they were less likely to engage in their available diversions - whether those be reading or something else. Hence B answer

amanvermagmat How can we assume that population today is much more? Moreover if they had less leisure time then probably they would have been less likely to engage not only in other diversions but also in reading. Can anyone please clarify this?
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4777
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jan 2018, 06:05
vikasp99 wrote:
Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Therefore they likely read much more than we do today.

Which of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. Many of the books published a century ago were of low literary quality.

B. On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.

C. The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.

D. On the average, books today cost slightly less is relation to other goods than they did a century ago.

E. One of the popular diversions of a century ago was horse racing.

Few diversions to amuse = More opportunity to read book.

(A) , (C) and (D) are clearly out of scope for the highlighted reasons...

(E) Talks about popular diversion as horse-riding which is one of the few Diversions available to people a century ago.

Only (B) weakens the argument by stating that fewer amusements were not responsible for more reading habit, further it suggests that people were genuinely Interested in reading despite less leisure time available to them than we have now....
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 202
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: ISB '21 (S)
GPA: 4
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jan 2018, 08:19
Abhishek009 wrote:
vikasp99 wrote:
Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Therefore they likely read much more than we do today.

Which of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. Many of the books published a century ago were of low literary quality.

B. On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.

C. The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.

D. On the average, books today cost slightly less is relation to other goods than they did a century ago.

E. One of the popular diversions of a century ago was horse racing.

Few diversions to amuse = More opportunity to read book.

(A) , (C) and (D) are clearly out of scope for the highlighted reasons...

(E) Talks about popular diversion as horse-riding which is one of the few Diversions available to people a century ago.

Only (B) weakens the argument by stating that fewer amusements were not responsible for more reading habit, further it suggests that people were genuinely Interested in reading despite less leisure time available to them than we have now....

Abhishek009 Still didn't understand why C is out of scope. If The number of books sold earlier was less than that sold a century earlier, doesn't it mean that people read less earlier??
I perfectly understand why B is a weakener but i am still not fully convinced with C as a wrong choice. A lil help!!!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2864
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jan 2018, 19:23
prateek176 wrote:
Abhishek009 wrote:
vikasp99 wrote:
Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Therefore they likely read much more than we do today.

Which of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

A. Many of the books published a century ago were of low literary quality.

B. On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.

C. The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.

D. On the average, books today cost slightly less is relation to other goods than they did a century ago.

E. One of the popular diversions of a century ago was horse racing.

Few diversions to amuse = More opportunity to read book.

(A) , (C) and (D) are clearly out of scope for the highlighted reasons...

(E) Talks about popular diversion as horse-riding which is one of the few Diversions available to people a century ago.

Only (B) weakens the argument by stating that fewer amusements were not responsible for more reading habit, further it suggests that people were genuinely Interested in reading despite less leisure time available to them than we have now....

Abhishek009 Still didn't understand why C is out of scope. If The number of books sold earlier was less than that sold a century earlier, doesn't it mean that people read less earlier??
I perfectly understand why B is a weakener but i am still not fully convinced with C as a wrong choice. A lil help!!!

Maybe I can help...

The number of books sold does not necessarily tell us anything about how much people read.

• Maybe a century ago most people got their books for free from libraries or borrowed books from friends.
• Just because you BUY a lot of books does not necessarily mean that you read a lot. Maybe you bought the books to give them as gifts or bought them and never read them.
• Maybe book sales have increased only because population has increased. The average number of book purchases per person might be the same now as it was a century ago (or even less!). If population has grown, the number of book sales would be higher today.

Increased book sales do not necessarily imply increased reading frequency. Eliminate choice (C).

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions   [#permalink] 28 Jan 2018, 19:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by