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 2206:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Let’s dive deep into advanced CR to ace GMAT Focus! Join this webinar to unlock the secrets to conquering Boldface and Paradox questions with expert insights and strategies. Elevate your skills and boost your GMAT Verbal Score now!
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.
10 Jul 2025, 10:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees. Selection committee criteria has not been discussed.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics. Not direct evidence. further selection probability is less & not rejected.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. yes this is said but this is not a flaw.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. Correct. What if those cities got selected for some other reason which city Y also has? may be they r rich or of good weather
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. Never said that the other cities are uninterested.
Ans D
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics. Not direct evidence. further selection probability is less & not rejected.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. yes this is said but this is not a flaw.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. Correct. What if those cities got selected for some other reason which city Y also has? may be they r rich or of good weather
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. Never said that the other cities are uninterested.
Ans D
10 Jul 2025, 10:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees. - not a flaw
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics. not a flaw
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. not a flaw
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. - Correct!
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. not a flaw
Correct answer choice is D
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics. not a flaw
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. not a flaw
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. - Correct!
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. not a flaw
Correct answer choice is D
Bunuel
10 Jul 2025, 11:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion
City Y's bid committee thinks that, since it has never hosted a major sports event before, based on past trends, it's almost impossible to be selected as the Olympic host city.
Premise
Looking at the last five Olympics, every prosperous bid city had hosted at least one major sports event in the five years preceding its application. No exceptions.
Assumption
To connect the premise to the conclusion ("no hosting experience → won't get picked"), we gotta assume:
"Hosting a big event is a must-have to get chosen by the Olympic committee."
In other words, no such experience = no chance.
Flaw / Alt Explanation
The author only noticed a common trait of past winning cities (all had hosting experience), but didn't prove that the trait is essential. They mixed up "all winners had X" with "X is why they won" — classic hasty generalization.
Option Analysis
A. "Mixing up Olympic committee criteria with bid committees' priorities." — Talks about criteria vs. priorities, not the hasty generalization. → Irrelevant
B. "Mistaking City Y's lack of hosting experience as direct proof it won't get picked." — Mentions misusing evidence but misses the core issue (no proof of necessity). → Not precise enough
C. "Overlooked that City Y could still get picked without hosting experience." — Only points out a possible exception, not the main flaw (hasty generalization). → Irrelevant
D. "The argument only relies on a common trait of past results without confirming if that trait is necessary." — Hits the nail: author saw "winners did X" but didn't argue "doing X is needed to win" — scope fallacy, hasty generalization. → Correct
E. "Assumes cities without hosting experience automatically don't want to host." — Not related to the primary focus (whether hosting experience is necessary). → Irrelevant
City Y's bid committee thinks that, since it has never hosted a major sports event before, based on past trends, it's almost impossible to be selected as the Olympic host city.
Premise
Looking at the last five Olympics, every prosperous bid city had hosted at least one major sports event in the five years preceding its application. No exceptions.
Assumption
To connect the premise to the conclusion ("no hosting experience → won't get picked"), we gotta assume:
"Hosting a big event is a must-have to get chosen by the Olympic committee."
In other words, no such experience = no chance.
Flaw / Alt Explanation
The author only noticed a common trait of past winning cities (all had hosting experience), but didn't prove that the trait is essential. They mixed up "all winners had X" with "X is why they won" — classic hasty generalization.
Option Analysis
A. "Mixing up Olympic committee criteria with bid committees' priorities." — Talks about criteria vs. priorities, not the hasty generalization. → Irrelevant
B. "Mistaking City Y's lack of hosting experience as direct proof it won't get picked." — Mentions misusing evidence but misses the core issue (no proof of necessity). → Not precise enough
C. "Overlooked that City Y could still get picked without hosting experience." — Only points out a possible exception, not the main flaw (hasty generalization). → Irrelevant
D. "The argument only relies on a common trait of past results without confirming if that trait is necessary." — Hits the nail: author saw "winners did X" but didn't argue "doing X is needed to win" — scope fallacy, hasty generalization. → Correct
E. "Assumes cities without hosting experience automatically don't want to host." — Not related to the primary focus (whether hosting experience is necessary). → Irrelevant
