It is currently 23 Sep 2017, 15:06

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Electrical engineers have repeatedly demonstrated that the

Author Message
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1209

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan
Electrical engineers have repeatedly demonstrated that the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2005, 22:33
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (00:00) correct 50% (04:10) wrong based on 4 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Electrical engineers have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solid-state amplifiers are indistinguishable from the best vacuum-tube amplifiers with respect to the characteristics commonly measured in evaluating the quality of an amplifierâ€™s musical reproduction. Therefore, those music lovers who insist that recorded music sounds better when played with the best vacuum tube amplifier must be imagining the difference in quality that they claim to hear.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.

(B) The range of variation with respect to the quality of musical reproduction is greater for vacuum tube amplifiers than for solid-state amplifiers.

(C) Some of the characteristics that are important in determining how music sounds to a listener cannot be measured.

(D) Solid-state amplifiers are more compact, use less power, and generate less heat than vacuum-tube amplifiers that produce a comparable volume of sound.

(E) Some vacuum-tube amplifiers are clearly superior to some solid-state amplifiers with respect to characteristics commonly measured in the laboratory to evaluate the quality of an amplifierâ€™s musical reproduction.

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1482

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2005, 23:52
(A) Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 607

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2005, 07:36
I would say A.. the stem talks about the difference when they are hearing. A says that most of them cannot tell the difference..

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 607

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2005, 07:46
christoph wrote:
i like B)

there is no refuting about the variation, quality of the amplifiers. but I thought the stem is talking about what is being heard by the clients. and we have to weaken that. B doesn't weaken that? it says that this amplifier is better than that. we are rather supporting the conclusion not weaken it.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 403 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2005, 07:55
vprabhala wrote:
christoph wrote:
i like B)

there is no refuting about the variation, quality of the amplifiers. but I thought the stem is talking about what is being heard by the clients. and we have to weaken that. B doesn't weaken that? it says that this amplifier is better than that. we are rather supporting the conclusion not weaken it.

the author says that listeners cannot know the difference. they just imagine to know it. B) says that there IS indeed a difference in quality. so it would weaken the conclusion that the listeners cannot hear the difference.

Kudos [?]: 403 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1209

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 00:48
vprabhala wrote:
christoph wrote:
i like B)

there is no refuting about the variation, quality of the amplifiers. but I thought the stem is talking about what is being heard by the clients. and we have to weaken that. B doesn't weaken that? it says that this amplifier is better than that. we are rather supporting the conclusion not weaken it.

The argument says the two amplifiers are of no difference.

But B says one is better than the other, that is to say the two amplifiers are different, isn't that?

Why not B?

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 10:10
C.

The argument is about the quality of reproduction of music using the solid state and vaccum tube amps. The conclusion is that using commonly measured characteristics there is no difference between the 2.
A weakener would attack this premise and C does that well.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 10:35
I believe (C) is the answer.

(C) actually proves what the experts measured cannot apply in determing the quality of the music and hence their claim is wrong. Just that they could not measure the paremeters that distinguish the two amplifiers.

Kudos [?]: 108 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1209

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 20:11
Hi Anand,

BTW how to refute B?

I think choice B says the variation of two amplifiers, but we are comparing the best of two amplifiers.

So, we can eliminated it.

right ?

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2232

Kudos [?]: 369 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2005, 22:01
Facty: Engineers measure the two as the same.
Conclusion: The music fans must be dreaming when they claim one is better than the other.

(A) Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.
If they really can't tell, then they must be dreaming about the difference. Actually supports the argument.

(B) The range of variation with respect to the quality of musical reproduction is greater for vacuum tube amplifiers than for solid-state amplifiers.
Contrary to the facts already provided. We said that they are no different in every aspects of measures.

(C) Some of the characteristics that are important in determining how music sounds to a listener cannot be measured.
If somethings cannot be measured, then even if they are the same when measured, those things that cannot be measured can still be different.

(D) Solid-state amplifiers are more compact, use less power, and generate less heat than vacuum-tube amplifiers that produce a comparable volume of sound.
Irrelevant.

(E) Some vacuum-tube amplifiers are clearly superior to some solid-state amplifiers with respect to characteristics commonly measured in the laboratory to evaluate the quality of an amplifierâ€™s musical reproduction.
Yea yea but we are not talking about those.

C

Kudos [?]: 369 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 721

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: Milwaukee

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 00:12
C as well

HongHu has explained it very well
_________________

Praveen

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1209

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 08:39
HongHu wrote:
Facty: Engineers measure the two as the same.
Conclusion: The music fans must be dreaming when they claim one is better than the other.

(A) Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.
If they really can't tell, then they must be dreaming about the difference. Actually supports the argument.

(B) The range of variation with respect to the quality of musical reproduction is greater for vacuum tube amplifiers than for solid-state amplifiers.
Contrary to the facts already provided. We said that they are no different in every aspects of measures.

(C) Some of the characteristics that are important in determining how music sounds to a listener cannot be measured.
If somethings cannot be measured, then even if they are the same when measured, those things that cannot be measured can still be different.

C

Hello, HongHu, in choice B, the fact means the premise. Does contrary to the facts not mean weaken the premise?
Moreover,is electrical engineers' demonstration the premise or the fact?
thanks

Kudos [?]: 797 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2232

Kudos [?]: 369 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 16:46
The engineers' conclusion is a fact that cannot be altered. You have to accept it as given.

Kudos [?]: 369 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5039

Kudos [?]: 425 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 20:26
(A) Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.
- strengthens the arguement

(B) The range of variation with respect to the quality of musical reproduction is greater for vacuum tube amplifiers than for solid-state amplifiers.
- not important.

(C) Some of the characteristics that are important in determining how music sounds to a listener cannot be measured.

(D) Solid-state amplifiers are more compact, use less power, and generate less heat than vacuum-tube amplifiers that produce a comparable volume of sound.
- out of scope

(E) Some vacuum-tube amplifiers are clearly superior to some solid-state amplifiers with respect to characteristics commonly measured in the laboratory to evaluate the quality of an amplifierâ€™s musical reproduction.
- not important with disproving the conclusion that music lovers are just imagining things

I'll take C. If some characteristics cannot be measured, then it is not right to say music lovers are imagining things because not all the characteristics are covered.

Kudos [?]: 425 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 848

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2005, 22:25
I am down for (C) as well. Same reasoning as above.

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 0

20 Mar 2005, 22:25
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste 8 25 Jun 2008, 23:03
Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer 4 19 Aug 2009, 08:23
Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer 0 26 Mar 2017, 06:11
Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer 4 19 May 2009, 21:57
Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer 1 29 Sep 2007, 23:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by