|
|
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.
Jaghan
Joined: 13 Feb 2020
Last visit: 29 Jul 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Schools: Desautels '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
28 May 2020, 11:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (01:37) correct
38%
(03:32)
wrong
based on 8
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
University Dean: Our institution is under the threat of closure if student enrollment fails to rise. Our fixed expenses, such as building maintenance and utilities, have increased more rapidly over the past five years than has revenue from all sources. In light of these facts, your proposal to increase the admission department’s budget is unjustified. The university cannot afford to spend any more for any expense. Instead, the plan I will present to the board of directors recommends increasing tuition for incoming students. Doing so will increase our institution’s revenue per student.
Admissions Dean: Any increase in the costs of attending this university will discourage students from choosing to attend, which will lower our overall revenue and threaten our ability to continue operating. My request for a budget increase will result in more students applying to our university, leading to more new students attending. The resulting increase in revenue will easily offset any increase in my department’s budget.
The Admissions Dean responds to the University Dean’s argument by
(A)pointing out a detrimental outcome of the University Dean’s proposal and providing an alternative method to reducing expenses at the university
(B)attacking the integrity of the University Dean while providing reasons for increasing the admission department’s budget
(C)denying the existence of the problem the University Dean’s proposal is intended to ameliorate while pointing out a benefit of increasing the number of new students
(D)emphasizing the need for increasing the number of students at the university while objecting to the University Dean’s explanation of the likely outcome of increasing tuition for new students
(E)explaining how increasing the admission department’s budget will help alleviate the university’s financial issues and why the University Dean’s proposal will promote the very outcome it is intended to prevent
Admissions Dean: Any increase in the costs of attending this university will discourage students from choosing to attend, which will lower our overall revenue and threaten our ability to continue operating. My request for a budget increase will result in more students applying to our university, leading to more new students attending. The resulting increase in revenue will easily offset any increase in my department’s budget.
The Admissions Dean responds to the University Dean’s argument by
(A)pointing out a detrimental outcome of the University Dean’s proposal and providing an alternative method to reducing expenses at the university
(B)attacking the integrity of the University Dean while providing reasons for increasing the admission department’s budget
(C)denying the existence of the problem the University Dean’s proposal is intended to ameliorate while pointing out a benefit of increasing the number of new students
(D)emphasizing the need for increasing the number of students at the university while objecting to the University Dean’s explanation of the likely outcome of increasing tuition for new students
(E)explaining how increasing the admission department’s budget will help alleviate the university’s financial issues and why the University Dean’s proposal will promote the very outcome it is intended to prevent
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Jaghan
Joined: 13 Feb 2020
Last visit: 29 Jul 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Schools: Desautels '23 (S)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
28 May 2020, 11:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: In light of these facts, your proposal to increase the admission department’s budget is unjustified. Instead, the plan I will present to the board of directors recommends increasing tuition for incoming students.
Premise: Our institution is under the threat of closure if student enrollment fails to rise. Our fixed expenses, such as building maintenance and utilities, have increased more rapidly over the past five years than has revenue from all sources. Doing so will increase our institution’s revenue per student.
Reasoning Pattern: Planning
Admissions Dean’s Argument
Conclusion: (Unstated) Do the Admissions Dean’s plan, namely increase the admission department’s budget.
Premises: Any increase in the costs of attending this university will discourage students from choosing to attend, which will lower our overall revenue and threaten our ability to continue operating. My request for a budget increase will result in more students applying to our university, leading to more new students attending. The resulting increase in revenue will easily offset any increase in my department’s budget.
Reasoning Pattern: Planning
The question stem indicates that the correct answer choice must provide the way by which the Admissions Dean responds to the University Dean’s argument, so this is an Identify the Reasoning question. The University Dean and the Admissions Dean each propose a plan, so each argument follows a planning pattern. This pattern can be recognized by each dean proposing a course of action. The University Dean begins by stating a problem facing the university, that it will close if student enrollment fails to rise. The University Dean then states that fixed expenses…have increased more rapidly…than has revenue, providing a reason for the situation. Then the University Dean disagrees with the plan proposed by the Admissions Dean to increase the admission department’s budget. The University Dean offers a counter-plan to increase tuition for incoming students and finishes by providing a premise in support of the latter plan, that the plan will increase our institution’s revenue per student. The Admissions Dean first states that any increase in the costs of attending this university will discourage students from choosing to attend, which will lower our overall revenue, thus highlighting a problem with the University Dean’s plan. The Admissions Dean then states that increasing the admissions department’s budget will ultimately lead to more new students attending and that the resulting increase in revenue will easily offset any increase in the admissions department’s budget. These statements form a premise in support of the Admissions Dean’s plan.
The standard assumption of a planning pattern is that there are no problems with the plan. The Admissions Dean attacks the University Dean’s assumption by stating a problem with the University Dean’s plan, and then provides a premise in support of the Admission Dean’s own plan. Now evaluate the answer choices, looking for one that reflects this idea.
Choice A: No. This choice only partially matches. The Admissions Dean does point out a detrimental outcome of the University Dean’s proposal but does not provide an alternative method. Instead, the Admissions Dean provides further support for an already stated plan.
Choice B: No. Attacking the integrity of the University Dean describes something the argument did not do.
Choice C: No. Denying the existence of the problem describes something the argument did not do.
Choice D: No. This choice only partially matches. The Admissions Dean does object to the University Dean’s explanation of the likely outcome of increasing tuition for new students, but the Admissions Dean also provides support of the Admissions Dean’s own plan.
Choice E: Correct. The Admissions Dean provides a premise in support of the Admissions Dean’s own plan, thus explaining how increasing the admissions department’s budget will help alleviate the university’s financial issues. The Admissions Dean also states a problem with the University Dean’s plan, thus explaining…why the University Dean’s proposal will promote the very outcome it is intended to prevent.
The correct answer is choice E.
Premise: Our institution is under the threat of closure if student enrollment fails to rise. Our fixed expenses, such as building maintenance and utilities, have increased more rapidly over the past five years than has revenue from all sources. Doing so will increase our institution’s revenue per student.
Reasoning Pattern: Planning
Admissions Dean’s Argument
Conclusion: (Unstated) Do the Admissions Dean’s plan, namely increase the admission department’s budget.
Premises: Any increase in the costs of attending this university will discourage students from choosing to attend, which will lower our overall revenue and threaten our ability to continue operating. My request for a budget increase will result in more students applying to our university, leading to more new students attending. The resulting increase in revenue will easily offset any increase in my department’s budget.
Reasoning Pattern: Planning
The question stem indicates that the correct answer choice must provide the way by which the Admissions Dean responds to the University Dean’s argument, so this is an Identify the Reasoning question. The University Dean and the Admissions Dean each propose a plan, so each argument follows a planning pattern. This pattern can be recognized by each dean proposing a course of action. The University Dean begins by stating a problem facing the university, that it will close if student enrollment fails to rise. The University Dean then states that fixed expenses…have increased more rapidly…than has revenue, providing a reason for the situation. Then the University Dean disagrees with the plan proposed by the Admissions Dean to increase the admission department’s budget. The University Dean offers a counter-plan to increase tuition for incoming students and finishes by providing a premise in support of the latter plan, that the plan will increase our institution’s revenue per student. The Admissions Dean first states that any increase in the costs of attending this university will discourage students from choosing to attend, which will lower our overall revenue, thus highlighting a problem with the University Dean’s plan. The Admissions Dean then states that increasing the admissions department’s budget will ultimately lead to more new students attending and that the resulting increase in revenue will easily offset any increase in the admissions department’s budget. These statements form a premise in support of the Admissions Dean’s plan.
The standard assumption of a planning pattern is that there are no problems with the plan. The Admissions Dean attacks the University Dean’s assumption by stating a problem with the University Dean’s plan, and then provides a premise in support of the Admission Dean’s own plan. Now evaluate the answer choices, looking for one that reflects this idea.
Choice A: No. This choice only partially matches. The Admissions Dean does point out a detrimental outcome of the University Dean’s proposal but does not provide an alternative method. Instead, the Admissions Dean provides further support for an already stated plan.
Choice B: No. Attacking the integrity of the University Dean describes something the argument did not do.
Choice C: No. Denying the existence of the problem describes something the argument did not do.
Choice D: No. This choice only partially matches. The Admissions Dean does object to the University Dean’s explanation of the likely outcome of increasing tuition for new students, but the Admissions Dean also provides support of the Admissions Dean’s own plan.
Choice E: Correct. The Admissions Dean provides a premise in support of the Admissions Dean’s own plan, thus explaining how increasing the admissions department’s budget will help alleviate the university’s financial issues. The Admissions Dean also states a problem with the University Dean’s plan, thus explaining…why the University Dean’s proposal will promote the very outcome it is intended to prevent.
The correct answer is choice E.
28 May 2020, 11:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Jaghan
Please re-post the question according to the rules: rules-to-post-on-the-verbal-forum-208733.html Pay attention to rules 3 and 8. Thank you.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
