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 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 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
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.
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
61% (02:16) correct
39%
(02:23)
wrong
based on 737
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental protection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.
The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?
A. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion
B. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.
C. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.
D. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.
E. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.
The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?
A. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion
B. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.
C. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.
D. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.
E. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.
21 Mar 2010, 13:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey All,
Great work on this one. I saw that the "General approach" question got asked on this one, so I thought I'd weigh in. This is an "evaluate the argument" type of question, and nsp is on the right track. Basically, you want to do your total outline WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BOLDS. Once you've done that, you can try to figure out where the bolds fit in with your outline. ALSO, very often, it is enough to simply differentiate between what pieces provide evidence of or support for something else, which are COUNTER-premises, and which are mere claims/conclusions. Let's try that here.
Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.
Conclusion: Measure to protect environment must be initiated by government
Premises: Biz won't help environment if hurts profits. XYZ = concrete example of that premise.
What you'll see here is that BOTH bolded statements end up in that premise area. Let's see if we can find the answer with that info alone.
The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?
1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion
PROBLEM: Neither bold is a conclusion.
2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.
PROBLEM: Okay. So the general approach breaks down here, because this does describe the two as both types of premises. However, the falsity of the second piece would not disprove the generalization.
3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.
PROBLEM: We don't have any counter-premises here, so this is wrong.
4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.
PROBLEM: Like B, this one comes close. However, the second piece does not support the conclusion, but the premise before it.
5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.
ANSWER: There we go, premise, then a derivative premise.
Hope that helps!
-t
Great work on this one. I saw that the "General approach" question got asked on this one, so I thought I'd weigh in. This is an "evaluate the argument" type of question, and nsp is on the right track. Basically, you want to do your total outline WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BOLDS. Once you've done that, you can try to figure out where the bolds fit in with your outline. ALSO, very often, it is enough to simply differentiate between what pieces provide evidence of or support for something else, which are COUNTER-premises, and which are mere claims/conclusions. Let's try that here.
Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.
Conclusion: Measure to protect environment must be initiated by government
Premises: Biz won't help environment if hurts profits. XYZ = concrete example of that premise.
What you'll see here is that BOTH bolded statements end up in that premise area. Let's see if we can find the answer with that info alone.
The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?
1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion
PROBLEM: Neither bold is a conclusion.
2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.
PROBLEM: Okay. So the general approach breaks down here, because this does describe the two as both types of premises. However, the falsity of the second piece would not disprove the generalization.
3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.
PROBLEM: We don't have any counter-premises here, so this is wrong.
4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.
PROBLEM: Like B, this one comes close. However, the second piece does not support the conclusion, but the premise before it.
5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.
ANSWER: There we go, premise, then a derivative premise.
Hope that helps!
-t
General Discussion
28 Mar 2010, 07:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
This type of questions is realy difficult!
I think a study of all possible answer choices would be helpful. Is there a collection?
I think a study of all possible answer choices would be helpful. Is there a collection?
