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.
08 Feb 2025, 09:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
ragnarok13
I think you may want to review strengthen questions first. Here is a discussion:
Discussion on Strengthen Questions: https://youtu.be/mB8bm_a4GNk
The point is that we should "support" the conclusion. Here the conclusion is:
This permit program has successfully prevented deterioration of archaeological treasures along the Inca Trail.
We have to provide support to it.
If we were to find out that since 2001, other similar ruins have disintegrated at a significantly greater rate than those on the Inca Trail i.e. Inca trail ruins are disintegrating slower than others since the restriction were brought in, it supports that the restrictions are helping.
We do not need to assume anything. This fact by itself supports that restrictions are helping. It does not prove anything but our job is to "support," not "prove" in strengthen questions.
Hence (D) is correct.
(C) Many of the funds from the sale of Inca Trail permits are used to staff a museum of Incan culture in Lima, Peru's capital, and to hire guards for archaeological sites without permit programs.
Where the money earned from permits goes we don't care. Does hiring guards prevent deterioration of treasures we don't know. So anyway there is no point trying to evaluate it. What is displayed in the museum, we don't know. Overall, it is irrelevant where the money earned goes. The point is that since permits came into being on the Inca trail, rate of deterioration is lower than the rate of deterioration of other similar objects where permits are not there.
31 Aug 2025, 14:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Option C is a spurious strengthener.
(C) Many of the funds from the sale of Inca Trail permits are used to staff a museum of Incan culture in Lima, Peru's capital, and to hire guards for archaeological sites without permit programs.
At first glance, this seems to explain efficacy(if you prethought) of the plan, but on careful reading, you would see that the funds are totally used elsewhere, hence in fact weakening the plan slightly.
(D) Since 2001, Incan ruins similar to Machu Picchu but not on the Inca Trail have disintegrated at a significantly greater rate than those on the Inca Trail.
This option shows that without cause(PP), the effect did not happen(ie prevention of deterioration did not happen) on similar grounds. Pretty conclusive way to show causation
(C) Many of the funds from the sale of Inca Trail permits are used to staff a museum of Incan culture in Lima, Peru's capital, and to hire guards for archaeological sites without permit programs.
At first glance, this seems to explain efficacy(if you prethought) of the plan, but on careful reading, you would see that the funds are totally used elsewhere, hence in fact weakening the plan slightly.
(D) Since 2001, Incan ruins similar to Machu Picchu but not on the Inca Trail have disintegrated at a significantly greater rate than those on the Inca Trail.
This option shows that without cause(PP), the effect did not happen(ie prevention of deterioration did not happen) on similar grounds. Pretty conclusive way to show causation
Moderators:
189 posts
