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.
01 Dec 2020, 09:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Dear Karishma,
First of all thank you for providing this opportunity for support!!!
About: a-recent-report-determined-that-although-only-3-percent-of-drivers-on-186145.html
I would like to share with you two ways of analysing the question and the OA. Can you give me feedback if my logic is right?
Lastly, I have two additional questions.
I. Conditional reasoning/form of argument
Premises:
If driver equipped with radar, then part of 3% of all drivers
If driver equipped with radar, then 33% of all ticketed for speeding
Conclusion:
If driver equipped with radar, then more likely to speed regularly
Flaw: Missing link
We have:
x--> y
x--> Z
x--> k
There is a missing link between particularly z & k. This is what the OA establishes.
II. Using the concept of weighted average
Two subgroups: ticketed (a) and Not ticketed (b)
We know: those with a radar have a higher share (33%) in a than in b (must be<3%). So if those with radar have a specific characteristic more than those without radar, then this characteristic must also have a higher share in a than in b. This is what the OA establishes.
III. Additional question
Is it possible to infer from the given whether (those ticketed & have a radar) > 1/2 (all with radar) ?
IV. Additional question
What strategy do you generally recommend for analyzing the argument during the test. It is heIping my understanding now, but am slightly worried that it will take me too much time to write down every argument in its conditional form. And I also worry that I start abstracting too much and loose the ability to employ "real world thinking". Happy to hear your advice.
Many thanks!
First of all thank you for providing this opportunity for support!!!
About: a-recent-report-determined-that-although-only-3-percent-of-drivers-on-186145.html
I would like to share with you two ways of analysing the question and the OA. Can you give me feedback if my logic is right?
Lastly, I have two additional questions.
I. Conditional reasoning/form of argument
Premises:
If driver equipped with radar, then part of 3% of all drivers
If driver equipped with radar, then 33% of all ticketed for speeding
Conclusion:
If driver equipped with radar, then more likely to speed regularly
Flaw: Missing link
We have:
x--> y
x--> Z
x--> k
There is a missing link between particularly z & k. This is what the OA establishes.
II. Using the concept of weighted average
Two subgroups: ticketed (a) and Not ticketed (b)
We know: those with a radar have a higher share (33%) in a than in b (must be<3%). So if those with radar have a specific characteristic more than those without radar, then this characteristic must also have a higher share in a than in b. This is what the OA establishes.
III. Additional question
Is it possible to infer from the given whether (those ticketed & have a radar) > 1/2 (all with radar) ?
IV. Additional question
What strategy do you generally recommend for analyzing the argument during the test. It is heIping my understanding now, but am slightly worried that it will take me too much time to write down every argument in its conditional form. And I also worry that I start abstracting too much and loose the ability to employ "real world thinking". Happy to hear your advice.
Many thanks!
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
