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.
Jul 1011:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our conversation, Kishore talks about how strategically he used data analytics to identify high impact areas to focus on as well as his early morning study routine (3 AM prep!) that optimized his GMAT preparation.- Jun 30
08:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates! - Jul 09
11:00 AM PDT
-12:30 PM PDT
Welcome to the M7 MBA Spotlight Series, featuring MIT Sloan School of Management! This video is part of GMAT Club’s exclusive MBA Spotlight event, where top business schools meet prospective applicants like you. 
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1206:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join our webinar to master GMAT RC Main Point Questions! Learn effective strategies to decipher passage themes and purposes. Senior Verbal Expert- Sunita Singhvi will equip you with tools to navigate complexities and avoid common traps set by the GMAT.
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 1611:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
01 Mar 2024, 22:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
61% (02:28) correct
39%
(02:46)
wrong
based on 872
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Editorial: It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities, with the attendant increase in traffic and noise, is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself. It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?
(A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in the Maple Stores tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.
(B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.
(C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.
(D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.
(E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.
GMAT-Club-Forum-eaub13fk.png [ 123.92 KiB | Viewed 1752 times ]
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?
(A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in the Maple Stores tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.
(B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.
(C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.
(D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.
(E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-eaub13fk.png [ 123.92 KiB | Viewed 1752 times ]
17 Aug 2024, 15:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Editorial: It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities, with the attendant increase in traffic and noise, is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself. It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities, with the attendant increase in traffic and noise, is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is that, since the new convenience stores are not operated by operators of stores driven out of Maple Square, it must not be the case that the cause of the proliferation of new stores is the zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square.
It might jump out at us that this reasoning is pretty weak. After all, it could be that new convenience stores were established in the nearby neighborhoods because the ones in Maple Square were shut down even if the stores are operated by different people.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though the evidence presented is true, the conclusion may not be.
(A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in Maple Square tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.
This information has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, regardless of how proprietors of stores in Maple Square ran their stores, it could still be that the reason for proliferation of convenience stores in the nearby neighborhoods is the zoning changes.
In other words, this information on how stores that were shut down were run doesn't tell us anything about why new stores were established.
Eliminate.
(B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.
This general information about what different neighborhoods want does not indicate whether, in this particular case, the zoning changes caused a proliferation of convenience stores.
So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the case for the conclusion.
Eliminate.
(C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.
This choice can be tempting because it can appear to cast doubt on the idea that the zoning changes drove the convenience stores out of Maple Square.
At the same time, there are reasons why this choice is not correct.
The first is that, regardless of whether the zoning changes specifically excluded convenience stores from Maple Square, by making it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers, the zoning changes could have effectively driven convenience stores out of Maple Square, as the passage implies that they did when it mentions "the stores that were closed down in Maple Square." Apparently, some stores were closed down. So, this choice does not actually cast doubt on the idea that the zoning changes drove convenience stores out of Maple Square.
Another is that the conclusion we're seeking to cast doubt on is not that the zoning changes drove the convenience stores out of Maple Square but rather that the zoning changes caused the proliferation of stores in nearby neighborhoods. The fact that the zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square does not mean that they didn't cause proliferation of convenience stores in neighboring areas by making it difficult for convenience stores to operate in Maple Square.
So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
Eliminate.
(D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.
This choice clearly has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, this choice is not about the effects of zoning changes. It's about what causes zoning changes, and regardless of what underlies zoning changes in general, these particular zoning changes may or may not have had the effect of causing proliferation of convenience stores in nearby neighborhoods.
Eliminate.
(E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.
The support for the argument's conclusion is that "It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods." Basically, the point is that driving convenience stores out of Maple Square didn't cause the proliferation in nearby areas because the stores in nearby areas are not operated by the same people who operated the ones in Maple Square. So, it's not as if the stores just moved.
Thus, this choice casts doubt on that reasoning by showing that, even though the new stores are not operated by anyone who operated the stores in Maple Square, it could still be that the zoning changes caused the establishment of the new stores because what happened was that a chain became aware of the zoning changes, grabbed all the good locations, and opened convenience stores there in response to the driving of convenience stores out of Maple Square.
So, sure, the operators of stores driven out of Maple Square didn't set up shop in nearby areas, but the zoning changes still caused the proliferation in another way.
Thus, this choice shows how it could be that the zoning changes caused the proliferation and thus casts doubt on the conclusion.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities, with the attendant increase in traffic and noise, is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is that, since the new convenience stores are not operated by operators of stores driven out of Maple Square, it must not be the case that the cause of the proliferation of new stores is the zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square.
It might jump out at us that this reasoning is pretty weak. After all, it could be that new convenience stores were established in the nearby neighborhoods because the ones in Maple Square were shut down even if the stores are operated by different people.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though the evidence presented is true, the conclusion may not be.
(A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in Maple Square tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.
This information has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, regardless of how proprietors of stores in Maple Square ran their stores, it could still be that the reason for proliferation of convenience stores in the nearby neighborhoods is the zoning changes.
In other words, this information on how stores that were shut down were run doesn't tell us anything about why new stores were established.
Eliminate.
(B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.
This general information about what different neighborhoods want does not indicate whether, in this particular case, the zoning changes caused a proliferation of convenience stores.
So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the case for the conclusion.
Eliminate.
(C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.
This choice can be tempting because it can appear to cast doubt on the idea that the zoning changes drove the convenience stores out of Maple Square.
At the same time, there are reasons why this choice is not correct.
The first is that, regardless of whether the zoning changes specifically excluded convenience stores from Maple Square, by making it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers, the zoning changes could have effectively driven convenience stores out of Maple Square, as the passage implies that they did when it mentions "the stores that were closed down in Maple Square." Apparently, some stores were closed down. So, this choice does not actually cast doubt on the idea that the zoning changes drove convenience stores out of Maple Square.
Another is that the conclusion we're seeking to cast doubt on is not that the zoning changes drove the convenience stores out of Maple Square but rather that the zoning changes caused the proliferation of stores in nearby neighborhoods. The fact that the zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square does not mean that they didn't cause proliferation of convenience stores in neighboring areas by making it difficult for convenience stores to operate in Maple Square.
So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.
Eliminate.
(D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.
This choice clearly has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, this choice is not about the effects of zoning changes. It's about what causes zoning changes, and regardless of what underlies zoning changes in general, these particular zoning changes may or may not have had the effect of causing proliferation of convenience stores in nearby neighborhoods.
Eliminate.
(E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.
The support for the argument's conclusion is that "It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods." Basically, the point is that driving convenience stores out of Maple Square didn't cause the proliferation in nearby areas because the stores in nearby areas are not operated by the same people who operated the ones in Maple Square. So, it's not as if the stores just moved.
Thus, this choice casts doubt on that reasoning by showing that, even though the new stores are not operated by anyone who operated the stores in Maple Square, it could still be that the zoning changes caused the establishment of the new stores because what happened was that a chain became aware of the zoning changes, grabbed all the good locations, and opened convenience stores there in response to the driving of convenience stores out of Maple Square.
So, sure, the operators of stores driven out of Maple Square didn't set up shop in nearby areas, but the zoning changes still caused the proliferation in another way.
Thus, this choice shows how it could be that the zoning changes caused the proliferation and thus casts doubt on the conclusion.
Keep.
Correct answer: E
General Discussion
02 Mar 2024, 00:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself.
Premise: None of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
So, the correct answer may say: it is RESONABLE to think that ZONING caused the PROLIFERATION of convenience stores.
Stimulus got me thinking: But what if, because of zoning changes, new convenience stores will opt out of Maple street and rather choose the neighborhood areas?
A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in the Maple Stores tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.
So what? Zoning can still be responsible. Doesn't weaken.
B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.
Yes, others seek to attract convenience stores. But are they unreasonable to think that, Zoning caused the proliferation of convenience stores?
This option doesn't talk about it.
C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.
Seems like this will weaken but
Strike 1 to remove this one can be: Stimulus talks about only convenience stores, and those stores are not moving to neighborhood areas.
Strike 2 can be: We may be right to think that, any new store may not move to MAPLE STREET. But we will be wrong to assume that new convenience-stores will move to neighborhood areas. They may OR may not. Doesn't weaken the argument.
D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.
Okay, so what? All i care about is whether zoning causes the proliferation of convenience stores.
E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.
This option is exactly the potential objection i had while reading the stimulus. What if new convenience stores are opting out of MAPLE STREET and moving to neighborhood areas because of zoning changes?
Completely wrecks the argument.
Premise: None of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
So, the correct answer may say: it is RESONABLE to think that ZONING caused the PROLIFERATION of convenience stores.
Stimulus got me thinking: But what if, because of zoning changes, new convenience stores will opt out of Maple street and rather choose the neighborhood areas?
A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in the Maple Stores tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.
So what? Zoning can still be responsible. Doesn't weaken.
B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.
Yes, others seek to attract convenience stores. But are they unreasonable to think that, Zoning caused the proliferation of convenience stores?
This option doesn't talk about it.
C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.
Seems like this will weaken but
Strike 1 to remove this one can be: Stimulus talks about only convenience stores, and those stores are not moving to neighborhood areas.
Strike 2 can be: We may be right to think that, any new store may not move to MAPLE STREET. But we will be wrong to assume that new convenience-stores will move to neighborhood areas. They may OR may not. Doesn't weaken the argument.
D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.
Okay, so what? All i care about is whether zoning causes the proliferation of convenience stores.
E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.
This option is exactly the potential objection i had while reading the stimulus. What if new convenience stores are opting out of MAPLE STREET and moving to neighborhood areas because of zoning changes?
Completely wrecks the argument.
