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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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 Jul 2020, 22:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
vishaldec4
Hi vishaldec4,
That's a good question, but we need a slightly different approach in verbal. If you see two options, both of which require assumptions to really make sense, you can't stop there. You must take a decision on which is the "greater" assumption, and then remove the option that needs that assumption. The correct option will be the one that is the best of the 5 options (and, especially in more difficult questions, it usually won't be a "perfect" option).
Also, given that all GMAT questions are tested before being used, we can be reasonably sure that test takers at the level this question is meant to be used consistently chose the correct option.
02 Jul 2020, 19:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
This question has led to a lot of debate (which is great!), but there is only one correct option here: C.
The farmer says the following things:
1. It is thought that mountain lions were driven from the entire region ~20 years ago.
2. But several people say that they've seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts.
3. These reports are spread over the past few years, "the latest just last month".
4. These "several people" ~have no reason to lie.
5. Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to urgently address the mountain lion's presence. ← This is the conclusion.
We are asked to pick the option that (most seriously) weakens the farmer's argument.
A. The farmer doesn't really link the action he or she recommends to the safety of fully-grown animals. Maybe we're worried about attacks on children, or on human beings in general. Also, this option uses "generally", which leaves open the possibility of occasional attacks on fully-grown animals. Finally, it is possible that the mountain lion(s) will kill younger animals.
B. This is a strengthener. If mountain lions don't look like other wild animals, the "several people" are less likely to have mistaken some other wild animal for a mountain lion.
C. "No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting."
Let's go through this statement carefully. Every one of the several people was alone at the time of the alleged sighting. Not one or two, but every single one of the several people, over a period of a few years. If there is a mountain lion (or mountain lions) in the area, how likely is it that it has not been spotted by a group of at least two people at least once? Why exactly does every sighting involve at most one person?
Maybe a single person is more likely to run as soon as he or she thinks there's a mountain lion around? Having someone else there means having more "eyes" on the situation. Having someone else there may also allow a person to stand their ground a little longer, enough to confirm that they did not, in fact, see a mountain lion. We cannot be sure, but the point is that this option gives us some reason to think that there is something a little unexpected happening (reports over a few years seem to somehow always involve a single person).
Now, is it possible to weaken this? Of course it is! Maybe mountain lions sneak up only on individuals, but why would they show themselves only to individuals if they were not hunting those individuals (the people who reported sightings did not report any attacks). We could just go in circles here, weakening an attempt to weaken the correct option by saying that maybe these sightings are like sightings of the Abominable Snowman. Maybe these individuals are aware of some of the earlier reports, and therefore already primed to report the most harmless of things as a mountain lion (I've read way too many Jim Corbett books
). Or we could just keep this option and take a look at the remaining options.
D. The farmer is looking at a period of a few years, so it's not particularly useful to know that there were no migrations in the past year.
E. The option goes with "more than half", but given that mountain lions were driven out ~20 years ago, and that the reports in the last few years are from "several" people, I would actually expect way more than just half of the people in the region to say that they've never seen a mountain lion before. That is, this statement is not inconsistent with occasional sightings.
I'll say this again: the GMAT does not owe anyone anything other than one option that is better than the other four options in any one question. Do not go in expecting anything more than that. Not in RC, not in SC, and definitely not in CR.
The farmer says the following things:
1. It is thought that mountain lions were driven from the entire region ~20 years ago.
2. But several people say that they've seen a mountain lion in the suburban outskirts.
3. These reports are spread over the past few years, "the latest just last month".
4. These "several people" ~have no reason to lie.
5. Therefore, local wildlife managers should begin to urgently address the mountain lion's presence. ← This is the conclusion.
We are asked to pick the option that (most seriously) weakens the farmer's argument.
A. The farmer doesn't really link the action he or she recommends to the safety of fully-grown animals. Maybe we're worried about attacks on children, or on human beings in general. Also, this option uses "generally", which leaves open the possibility of occasional attacks on fully-grown animals. Finally, it is possible that the mountain lion(s) will kill younger animals.
B. This is a strengthener. If mountain lions don't look like other wild animals, the "several people" are less likely to have mistaken some other wild animal for a mountain lion.
C. "No person who claimed to have seen a mountain lion had anyone else with them at the purported sighting."
Let's go through this statement carefully. Every one of the several people was alone at the time of the alleged sighting. Not one or two, but every single one of the several people, over a period of a few years. If there is a mountain lion (or mountain lions) in the area, how likely is it that it has not been spotted by a group of at least two people at least once? Why exactly does every sighting involve at most one person?
Maybe a single person is more likely to run as soon as he or she thinks there's a mountain lion around? Having someone else there means having more "eyes" on the situation. Having someone else there may also allow a person to stand their ground a little longer, enough to confirm that they did not, in fact, see a mountain lion. We cannot be sure, but the point is that this option gives us some reason to think that there is something a little unexpected happening (reports over a few years seem to somehow always involve a single person).
Now, is it possible to weaken this? Of course it is! Maybe mountain lions sneak up only on individuals, but why would they show themselves only to individuals if they were not hunting those individuals (the people who reported sightings did not report any attacks). We could just go in circles here, weakening an attempt to weaken the correct option by saying that maybe these sightings are like sightings of the Abominable Snowman. Maybe these individuals are aware of some of the earlier reports, and therefore already primed to report the most harmless of things as a mountain lion (I've read way too many Jim Corbett books
). Or we could just keep this option and take a look at the remaining options.D. The farmer is looking at a period of a few years, so it's not particularly useful to know that there were no migrations in the past year.
E. The option goes with "more than half", but given that mountain lions were driven out ~20 years ago, and that the reports in the last few years are from "several" people, I would actually expect way more than just half of the people in the region to say that they've never seen a mountain lion before. That is, this statement is not inconsistent with occasional sightings.
I'll say this again: the GMAT does not owe anyone anything other than one option that is better than the other four options in any one question. Do not go in expecting anything more than that. Not in RC, not in SC, and definitely not in CR.
06 Jul 2020, 03:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
[quote="AjiteshArun"]
AjiteshArun
Thanks, I guess you are right.
I would like to know how to reach the next level of answering questions? say from 600 to 700 lvl.
At this point i have a very good accuracy 500 level (100%) 600 level (+85%), but only 25% in 700 lvl.
I want to reach at least above 65% accuracy in this 700 level.
Some 700 lvl questions in SC i am able to answer if given 3 or 4 minutes, but it is not the same case with CR & RC.
Do I revisit concepts ? or Do more 700 lvl Questions? Deeper Error Logs?
Because I feel that each 700 Lvl has its own different method or concept that it tests and is unique, be it SC / CR ? RC.
Any tips please.
AjiteshArun
Thanks, I guess you are right.
I would like to know how to reach the next level of answering questions? say from 600 to 700 lvl.
At this point i have a very good accuracy 500 level (100%) 600 level (+85%), but only 25% in 700 lvl.
I want to reach at least above 65% accuracy in this 700 level.
Some 700 lvl questions in SC i am able to answer if given 3 or 4 minutes, but it is not the same case with CR & RC.
Do I revisit concepts ? or Do more 700 lvl Questions? Deeper Error Logs?
Because I feel that each 700 Lvl has its own different method or concept that it tests and is unique, be it SC / CR ? RC.
Any tips please.
