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 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 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.
10 Jul 2024, 01:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
the answer is B b/c The number of diesel vehicles currently in use in the city will not increase from the current level It makes it safe
10 Jul 2024, 02:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello, everyone.
This is the second day of the competition.
I truly like the concept of competitiveness.
Every day is new. Everything can change. To win, you must maintain a consistent pace.
Get ready. Here we GO.
Let's get started with our explanation for this topic on day two:
Analyze the Question
This is an Assumption question.
Deconstruct:
To improve air quality - Our Conclusion(Goal)
the city council of a metropolitan area is considering imposing a heavy fine on the use of diesel vehicles within city limits - Premise (Plan).
The city's environmental officer claims that this fine will significantly reduce the level of air pollution in the city within one year - Intermidate Conclusion State the GOAL:
We are looking for an assumption that the argument depends on.
Assumptions are necessary and not just strengthening the argument. (at that question we will tackle that principle).
Some assumptions I can think of: Something else won't cause to an (significantly) increase in pollution WITHIN the city.
People will not prefer to pay the fine other than replacing the car!
Elimination:
A)No Tie - this option talks about the monitoring that helps monitor the pollution. but we are not talking about that in the argument.
B)
C)
D)No Tie - this option talks about vehicles entering the city. but what cars? diesel? Electric? we don't know. how is it affect the pollution?
E)Real World - this option can imply that traffic cause pollution. but this is a real world knowledge and assumptions we are making.
I had doubts between B and C
lets analyze them:
B) talking about number of diesel vehicles - + Relevant for our argument
saying it won't increase - in one hand it's supposdly helping but we don't know what is the pollution in the given situation - so we can't really know.
Indeed, we know that the situation now is bad. they want to improve it. in order to do so they enact fine on diesel cars because they think it will help. but if the number of cars is not going up we don't know if it will cause less polution? maybe it will keep polluting?
Negate: it's braking the argument. if the number will go up the all plan is destroyed. this is why I chose this option eventually.
C) this is kind of my assumption in stating the goal. taking about the AMOUNT of pullution the industrial is making - + Relevant to our argument because the goal is to reduce the pollution.
saying it won't increase - this is very helpful. if its not going up the pollution might stay low if the plan will succeed.
not talking about diesel car - this is my problem here. it is not talking about the diesel cars at all.
NEGATE: Also breaking the argument. if the pollution will increase the plan won't succeed.
I chose B because I dont really know how much was the increase. if the industry is only being a really small portion of the pollution within the city and also it has a small increase so it is not breaking the argument.
THE END
I hope you liked the explanation, I have tried my best here.
Let me know if you have any questions about this question or my explanation.
This is the second day of the competition.
I truly like the concept of competitiveness.
Every day is new. Everything can change. To win, you must maintain a consistent pace.
Get ready. Here we GO.
Let's get started with our explanation for this topic on day two:
Analyze the Question
This is an Assumption question.
Deconstruct:
To improve air quality - Our Conclusion(Goal)
the city council of a metropolitan area is considering imposing a heavy fine on the use of diesel vehicles within city limits - Premise (Plan).
The city's environmental officer claims that this fine will significantly reduce the level of air pollution in the city within one year - Intermidate Conclusion State the GOAL:
We are looking for an assumption that the argument depends on.
Assumptions are necessary and not just strengthening the argument. (at that question we will tackle that principle).
Some assumptions I can think of: Something else won't cause to an (significantly) increase in pollution WITHIN the city.
People will not prefer to pay the fine other than replacing the car!
Elimination:
A)No Tie - this option talks about the monitoring that helps monitor the pollution. but we are not talking about that in the argument.
B)
C)
D)No Tie - this option talks about vehicles entering the city. but what cars? diesel? Electric? we don't know. how is it affect the pollution?
E)Real World - this option can imply that traffic cause pollution. but this is a real world knowledge and assumptions we are making.
I had doubts between B and C
lets analyze them:
B) talking about number of diesel vehicles - + Relevant for our argument
saying it won't increase - in one hand it's supposdly helping but we don't know what is the pollution in the given situation - so we can't really know.
Indeed, we know that the situation now is bad. they want to improve it. in order to do so they enact fine on diesel cars because they think it will help. but if the number of cars is not going up we don't know if it will cause less polution? maybe it will keep polluting?
Negate: it's braking the argument. if the number will go up the all plan is destroyed. this is why I chose this option eventually.
C) this is kind of my assumption in stating the goal. taking about the AMOUNT of pullution the industrial is making - + Relevant to our argument because the goal is to reduce the pollution.
saying it won't increase - this is very helpful. if its not going up the pollution might stay low if the plan will succeed.
not talking about diesel car - this is my problem here. it is not talking about the diesel cars at all.
NEGATE: Also breaking the argument. if the pollution will increase the plan won't succeed.
I chose B because I dont really know how much was the increase. if the industry is only being a really small portion of the pollution within the city and also it has a small increase so it is not breaking the argument.
THE END
I hope you liked the explanation, I have tried my best here.
Let me know if you have any questions about this question or my explanation.
10 Jul 2024, 02:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
I will go with D.
Let us negate the option D - The number of vehicles entering the city from nearby areas will significantly increase over the next year. Now if vehicles entering the city from nearby area then pollution will increase even if the fine is there. Thereby breaking the conclusion.
So, OA = D
