I08-01

Question

For over 200 years, the professionally curated  Encyclopedia Alphabetica  was the most trusted global reference resource, with a set of 26 physical textbooks organized alphabetically from A to Z costing an average of $3,000. However, since 2000, the free, crowd-sourced knowledge website  Multipedia  has rapidly gained market share and now receives 20 times more monthly traffic than  Encyclopedia Alphabetica’s  website. Moreover, an unbiased scholastic audit found that an average article in  Encyclopedia Alphabetica’s  textbooks contains the same number of errors—three—as an article on the same topic on  Multipedia’s  website.
 
Select the statement most reasonably supported by the information provided and the assumption necessary to support that statement.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Most Reasonably Supported Statement:  The professional writers of  Encyclopedia Alphabetica  are no more authoritative on general information than the volunteer editors maintaining  Multipedia  articles.
 
 Reasoning:  The passage explicitly states that an unbiased audit found that articles from both sources have the same average number of errors (three). This suggests equivalence in the accuracy of the content, which supports the conclusion that the professional writers and volunteer editors are equally authoritative.
 
 Assumption Necessary to Support the Statement:   Multipedia's  most-experienced volunteer editors sitewide do not rely on  Encyclopedia Alphabetica's  published textbooks as their primary source of information.
 
 Reasoning:  If  Multipedia's  editors relied on  Encyclopedia Alphabetica  as a primary source, the equivalence in error rates might simply reflect the accuracy of  Encyclopedia Alphabetica's  textbooks rather than an independent effort by  Multipedia . For the statement about authority to hold, we must assume that  Multipedia's  volunteer editors independently create content and do not simply reproduce information from  Encyclopedia Alphabetica .
 
 Remaining Options Analysis: 
 
• The implicit biases of the scholars conducting the audit caused the audit’s findings to be dismissed by many in the academic community.
 
The passage explicitly states that the audit was unbiased, directly contradicting this option. Additionally, there is no mention or implication in the passage that the audit’s findings were dismissed by anyone, making this statement entirely unsupported.
 
• Only crowd-sourced websites that are highly adaptable and innovative will have the potential to disrupt the entrenched oligopoly of traditional academic publishers.
 
While the passage discusses  Multipedia's  success, there is no basis to assume that  only  crowd-sourced websites can disrupt traditional publishers. The information provided does not exclude the possibility of other models, such as hybrid approaches or innovative professional publishers, being successful in challenging the oligopoly.
 
•  Multipedia  may struggle to match the consistency of editorial quality maintained by  Encyclopedia Alphabetica's  expert curators.
 
The passage explicitly states that  Multipedia  has already matched  Encyclopedia Alphabetica  in terms of error rate, suggesting that the two are currently equal in quality. Whether  Multipedia  will struggle to maintain this in the future is speculative and unsupported by the information given.
 
•  Encyclopedia Alphabetica  will regain its position as a leading reference resource if it significantly lowers its textbook prices.
 
The passage provides no evidence that lowering prices would ensure  Encyclopedia Alphabetica  regains its position.  Multipedia  has 20 times more traffic than  Encyclopedia Alphabetica , making it unlikely that reducing the price of physical textbooks would close the gap in online dominance.

Correct answer:

Most Reasonably Supported Statement  "The professional writers of Encyclopedia Alphabetica are no more authoritative on general information than the volunteer editors maintaining Multipedia articles. "

Assumption Necessary  "Multipedia's most-experienced volunteer editors sitewide do not rely on Encyclopedia Alphabetica's published textbooks as their primary source of information."

Bunuel · Answer

I have revised the question, solution, and formatting by adding more details to enhance clarity.

kartickdey · Answer

Bunuel 
In this question I fixed the two right answers but I was very much confused which one should be the supported statement and which one should be the assumption. Both orders make sense to me. Please clarify my doubt.

Bunuel · Answer

The supported statement has to be something you can get from the passage itself, without adding any new facts. The passage directly gives you a comparison of outcomes: articles in both sources average the same number of errors (three). That is why the supported statement is the one claiming the professional writers are no more authoritative (as measured by accuracy here) than the volunteer editors.

The “do not rely on Encyclopedia Alphabetica as their primary source” claim is not supported anywhere in the passage. It is information we do not know. It is used as the necessary assumption because, without it, there is an obvious alternative explanation for the equal error rates: Multipedia could be largely copying from Encyclopedia Alphabetica, so the similarity would not show independent authority by the volunteers.

I08-01

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Most Reasonably Supported Statement	Assumption Necessary
		The implicit biases of the scholars conducting the audit caused the audit’s findings to be dismissed by many in the academic community.
		Only crowd-sourced websites that are highly adaptable and innovative will have the potential to disrupt the entrenched oligopoly of traditional academic publishers.
		Multipedia may struggle to match the consistency of editorial quality maintained by Encyclopedia Alphabetica's expert curators.
		Encyclopedia Alphabetica will regain its position as a leading reference resource if it significantly lowers its textbook prices.
		Multipedia's most-experienced volunteer editors sitewide do not rely on Encyclopedia Alphabetica's published textbooks as their primary source of information.
		The professional writers of Encyclopedia Alphabetica are no more authoritative on general information than the volunteer editors maintaining Multipedia articles.