I28-11

Question

A local library has recently implemented a new policy that limits the number of books patrons can borrow at one time. The policy states that a patron may only check out up to 5 books at a time, with the exception of students enrolled in university courses who are allowed to check out up to 10 books.
 
 Patron 1:  "The new policy is unreasonable. Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs. Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status."
 
 Patron 2:  "I understand the frustration, but the library likely implemented this policy to ensure broader access to their collection. With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons. The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework."
 
In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 1 develops their objection to the library's policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 2 responds to Patron 1's argument.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Patron 1's Argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons, arguing that the 5-book limit is unreasonable and insufficient to meet their reading needs.
 
Patron 2's Argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints, asserting that the higher limit for students is justified by their unique academic requirements.
 
 The correct answer is: 
 
Patron 1's Argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
 
Option 5 is incorrect because Patron 1's argument focuses on the unreasonableness of the overall 5-book limit, and the unfairness of discriminating based on academic status (the exception for university students). Patron 1 is not directly challenging the justification for the higher limit for students.
 
Patron 2's Argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

Correct answer:

Patron 1's argument  "Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons."

Patron 2's argument  "Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints."

Sushi_545 · Answer

@@@Bunuel,

Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.--> where does individual patrons are coming into picture here ?

Bunuel · Answer

The phrase "individual patrons" refers to  Patron 1  mentioning that many people, including themselves, use the library to supplement their home collections, and that the 5-book limit is not enough to meet their reading needs. This highlights the personal impact on regular users, which is why the correct match is about the impact on individual patrons.

Kashli · Answer

I did not quite understand the solution. Hi, I selected "Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs" for patron 1's argument. Can you please explain why this is not the case as patron 1 specifically emphasizes on it?

Bunuel · Answer

Option 5 is incorrect because the argument does not say the student exception is unjustified. It focuses on the overall 5-book limit being unreasonable and the unfairness of making exceptions based on academic status. There is no claim that students don't deserve more books.

dotsoftme · Answer

why for Patron 1 :  Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.  
 is not correct? Please explain

Bunuel · Answer

That option would require Patron 1 to compare the policy to some other situation to show it is unfair. In the passage, Patron 1 never makes any comparison; they just say 5 books are not enough and that the student exception feels unfair. That is a direct complaint, not an analogy, so that choice does not fit.

kartickdey · Answer

it is written in the passage " Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status.". it means simply that the patron 1 thinks that the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs. I could not find any difference in meaning in the two statements. Please clarify.

Bunuel · Answer

Patron 1 says the rule is  unfair because it treats people differently by status .
 Option 5 says Patron 1 claims  students’ needs do not justify the exception .

Those are  not the same .
 One attacks  fairness of classification , the other attacks  validity of students’ needs .

I28-11

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

Patron 1's argument	Patron 2's argument
		Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.
		Counters the analogy with a different perspective.
		Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
		Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
		Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.