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 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.
12 Oct 2019, 23:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle
accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major
research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of
articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year
actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
Hi experts,
I have often encountered this pattern in options B and D while solving CR questions but I haven't been able to get a good grasp of it. Could someone break it down for me, please?
Summary: decline in availability of particle accelerators (X) ------------------> low number of articles (Y)
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
OG explanation: A decline in waiting time would seem to promote more articles about accelerator research being written and published, not fewer.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
OG explanation: If the accelerators can be used for multiple experiments, then it is reasonable to expect more articles related to them, not fewer.
Given options B and D as true, don't they challenge the link saying that the effect should have been reversed?
Thank You,
Dablu
accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major
research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of
articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year
actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
Hi experts,
I have often encountered this pattern in options B and D while solving CR questions but I haven't been able to get a good grasp of it. Could someone break it down for me, please?
Summary: decline in availability of particle accelerators (X) ------------------> low number of articles (Y)
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
OG explanation: A decline in waiting time would seem to promote more articles about accelerator research being written and published, not fewer.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
OG explanation: If the accelerators can be used for multiple experiments, then it is reasonable to expect more articles related to them, not fewer.
Given options B and D as true, don't they challenge the link saying that the effect should have been reversed?
Thank You,
Dablu
16 Oct 2019, 22:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
A) A decline in the availability of particle accelerators - FACT
B) A decline in the number of articles published - FACT
C) A CAUSED B to happen - OPINION
(As an analogy assume that research paper on outer space can only be done by observing it through the Hubble telescope. So the argument is saying as the telescope was under repair - people could not write research papers on outer space).
Options
B) Average wait time has gone down ---> Means more people should have been able to access, therefore, moe articles should have been published (given the causation) but this goes against the fact provided that there has been a decline in the number of articles.
D) More people can use the particle accelerators --> Means more articles should have been published (given the causation) but this also goes against the fact provided.
E) Breaks the causation by saying - the decrease was due to another reason (ALTERNATE CAUSATION)
Hope that helps
B) A decline in the number of articles published - FACT
C) A CAUSED B to happen - OPINION
(As an analogy assume that research paper on outer space can only be done by observing it through the Hubble telescope. So the argument is saying as the telescope was under repair - people could not write research papers on outer space).
Options
B) Average wait time has gone down ---> Means more people should have been able to access, therefore, moe articles should have been published (given the causation) but this goes against the fact provided that there has been a decline in the number of articles.
D) More people can use the particle accelerators --> Means more articles should have been published (given the causation) but this also goes against the fact provided.
E) Breaks the causation by saying - the decrease was due to another reason (ALTERNATE CAUSATION)
Hope that helps
11 May 2020, 11:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
gurudabl
This question is discussed here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/journalist-i ... 02509.html Hope it helps.
