It is currently 25 Nov 2017, 03:12

### 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

# Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: Keep fighting!
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 220

Kudos [?]: 540 [4], given: 104

WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2010, 09:05
4
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:42) correct 40% (01:50) wrong based on 320 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

-Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
-Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
-There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
-Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
-Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

Don't forget KUDOS if you like the question. This is from KAPLAN CAT.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 540 [4], given: 104

 Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes Optimus Prep Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Current Student
Status: Three Down.
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1914

Kudos [?]: 2232 [1], given: 210

Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2010, 09:17
1
KUDOS
Gambling experts say:

Provided there's advanced enough technology: Skilled technician will win almost every time.

hemanthp wrote:
Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

-Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time. This would support the gambling expert's view point. We are asked to find something that would render the proposition useless
-Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment. This is a tricky one. It might appear right at first glance, but think about it - the gambling expert says "IF you have the tech, you can win almost every time" and this one says, "The tech is not available yet" so this indirectly alludes to a possible scenario that it WOULD be possible if only the tech had been available. Doesn't weaken the expert's argument. Hence incorrect
-There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it. This is correct. So if the computer technology is not as advanced, then even a skilled technician won't be able to bet on the right one every time/win. Directly contradicts his reasoning, hence correct
-Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions. Supports the argument!
-Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling. We don't care about this as it doesn't relate to the proposition at all

Don't forget KUDOS if you like the question. This is from KAPLAN CAT. - I notice that it's already there in your signature, please don't post questions simply for the purpose of attaining kudos. Make your contributions valuable instead and users will automatically feel inclined to give you kudos

Kudos [?]: 2232 [1], given: 210

Manager
Status: Keep fighting!
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 220

Kudos [?]: 540 [0], given: 104

WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2010, 09:37
Wow PANDA ..you are good at CR. All these are the ones I got wrong.

Kudos [?]: 540 [0], given: 104

Current Student
Status: Three Down.
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1914

Kudos [?]: 2232 [0], given: 210

Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2010, 09:43
I think for CR you need to look at the nitty-gritty details. The second choice in this question for instance - that would be mildly tricky and I am hazarding a guess that it's an answer that most people would choose but get wrong.

Kudos [?]: 2232 [0], given: 210

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 15

WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2010, 22:44
Missed the against in the question and got the option D. I hate it when I read the question wrong.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 223

Kudos [?]: 327 [0], given: 21

Location: India
WE 1: 6 Year, Telecom(GSM)

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2010, 01:08
Got it by reading Your Book whiplash.Now only i tried using ur way.Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 327 [0], given: 21

Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 89

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 14

Schools: Wharton..:)

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2010, 03:56
conclusion :: such a claim could never be evaluated,
ask urself ? wht is " such a claim"..?
ans- such a claim is tht thr is no technology tht can help u in assessing the correct performance of the gambler BECAUSE evn the losses would be tempered..

so anything tht helps u in assessing the performance of a gambler is ur ans ..

go ahead ans solve ans should be B..
_________________

" What [i] do is not beyond anybody else's competence"- warren buffett
My Gmat experience -http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-710-q-47-v-41-tips-for-non-natives-107086.html

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 14

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 4 [1], given: 8

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2010, 05:14
1
KUDOS
Option C is correct.
In my opinion, C tells us that there is a logical link between the technology available and the success rate achievable. Thus, at least in future, such evaluation could be possible when such advanced technology is available.

HTH
--
Aman

Kudos [?]: 4 [1], given: 8

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1628

Kudos [?]: 1126 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2010, 19:52
+1 C
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1126 [0], given: 109

Manager
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 38 [1], given: 50

Schools: UNC Kenan-Flagler, IU Kelley, Emory GSB
WE 1: 5 yrs

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2010, 03:27
1
KUDOS
hemanthp wrote:
Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

-Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
-Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
-There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
-Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
-Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

Don't forget KUDOS if you like the question. This is from KAPLAN CAT.

Hi Whiplash... I don't think I understood your explanation of the correct answer.

I get really lost it in such timekiller CRs . Though I got it correct, my reasoning isn't in line with the others.

My take on this is:
We have to prove that author is wrong - i.e. gambling experts' claim can be evaluated. i.e. there is no scope of blame game when there is a loss. i.e. the output is measurable.

C states that there is a direct correlation between technology and the level of success achieved by a technician. Hence, proficiency can be measured. This is sufficient to prove the author wrong.

Thats why i thought its the correct answer. Am i missing something??
_________________

The night is at its darkest just before the dawn... never, ever give up!

Last edited by yossarian84 on 09 Nov 2010, 08:38, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 38 [1], given: 50

Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 80

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2010, 08:31
argmnt :

advcd tech -> gmblr wins gamblng
But this can not be evaluted
If relation b\w 2 items establishes then this activity can be evaluated

ans = C that establishes relation b\w 2 items so one can be evaluated wrt to other

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 2

TOEFL Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1602

Kudos [?]: 602 [0], given: 40

Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2011, 07:47
The answer is C, it provides evidence against speaker's claim.
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 602 [0], given: 40

Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 111

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2011, 19:10

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Posts: 159

Kudos [?]: 232 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2011, 19:51
B is not the answer because - we don't have gambling experts opinion if the equipment will be produced later on.
_________________

Consider me giving KUDOS, if you find my post helpful.
If at first you don't succeed, you're running about average. ~Anonymous

Kudos [?]: 232 [0], given: 31

Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2011, 00:05
what does the last sentence of the argument mean:
Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

cant get how the clause after 'for' is related to 'Yet such a claim could never be evaluated'

plz help

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 202

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2011, 02:54
I remember getting this one correct on the test. Answer is C as mentioned by many.

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 871

Kudos [?]: 401 [0], given: 123

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2011, 19:00
Nobody is telling about D. I read this post and no explanation.

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 401 [0], given: 123

Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 140

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 37

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2013, 07:56
Premise:
With advanced computer technology = success for skilled T
Author Disagrees, as losses can be bcoz immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.
How can this be untrue? If there is a known correlation between technology & success

C. There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it. ---> Talks about correlation. If you know x advance = x success. you cant blame technology.
D. Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions. --> Only Certain rare configurations of computer data = success Not necessary computer technology or skill
_________________

Please give Kudos if you like the post

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 37

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10135

Kudos [?]: 271 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2014, 06:42
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 271 [0], given: 0

Re: Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced   [#permalink] 12 Nov 2014, 06:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by