In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency's records were revie

Goro’s GNP
 
Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase most strongly supported by the statements given in the question stem shows that this is an Inference problem. (It might seem like a strengthen question. Note that the wording of the question stem asks which answer choice is supported by the information from the argument. A strengthen question would ask the reverse: which answer choice supports the argument given above?)

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

1963-1994: M underestimates G’s GNP 5yrs later
1963-1994: M right about G’s GNP in prev. year (state secret)

Each year, Marut attempts to estimate Goro’s GNP from the previous year, and also attempts to predict Goro’s GNP in five years. Even though the GNP from the previous year is a state secret, Marut estimates it correctly. On the other hand, Marut always underestimates what Goro’s GNP will be in five years. Marut didn’t learn about these trends until 1994, when the actual data emerged.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Inference questions, the goal is to find an answer that can be proven true using ONLY the facts stated in the argument.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The argument provides no information about Goro’s actual GNP. Since the argument only describes the relationship between Marut’s predictions and Goro’s GNP, rather than providing actual data for either, no conclusions about trends in the GNP itself can be supported.

(B) There’s no way to know for sure, just based on the argument, what data Goro released. It’s possible that misleading information caused Marut’s poor predictions. It’s also possible that a lack of information had the same result.

(C) Imagine a simple scenario in which Goro’s GNP was exactly $100 every year. Every year, Marut estimated that the GNP in 5 years would be $50, and that the GNP from the previous year had been $100. In this scenario, every statement in the argument would be correct, and the amount by which Marut underestimated Goro’s GNP would be consistent, rather than increasing. Because this answer choice isn’t necessarily true in all situations, it isn’t the correct answer.

(D) CORRECT. The agency made at least two estimates for every year’s GNP. One estimate was made five years previous; the other was made in the following year. (For instance, two estimates were made for the GNP in 1990: one in 1985, and another in 1991). Since the following year’s estimate was consistently accurate, while the five-years-previous estimate was consistently inaccurate, the two estimates must have been different. In order to change the following-year estimate, the agency must have believed that the original prediction was inaccurate.

(E) The argument makes no claims about the effects of the estimates, only about whether they were accurate.

Solution
Passage analysis

In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency's records were reviewed in 1994
In 1994, in the country of Marut, the records of its Foreign Trade Agency(FTA) were reviewed.

in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro.
This review was done when information became newly available about its neighbor Goro.

The review revealed that in every year since 1963,
This review brought to light that each year since 1963

 the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later
FTA’s estimates of what Goro’s GNP would be five years down the line

was a serious underestimate
Were grossly inaccurate (projected estimates were much lower than the actual GNP)

 The review also revealed that in every year since 1963,
The same review also revealed that each year since 1963

the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year
FTA’s estimated Goro’s GNP for just the previous year

—a Goro state secret—
(this information was kept secret by Goro)

very accurately.
Very accurately.

Gist of the passage

• There are 2 neighboring countries à Marut and Goro.
• Information about Goro became newly available to Marut.
• Equipped with this newly available information, Marut’s Foreign Trade Agency (FTA)reviewed its records in 1994.
• The review revealed the following pieces of information
  
  • In every year since the year 1963 (for the last 30 years), FTA’s projections of what Goro’s GNP would be, five years later, were seriously flawed.
  • But, for the same period, that is, in each year since 1963, the same agency was able to estimate very accurately Goro’s previous year’s GNP (although this was kept secret by Goro at the time)
• This means that if FTA made a prediction in 1963, it would be for Goro’s GNP in 1969 and in 1964 it would be for 1970, and in1965 it would be for 1971, and so on. We know from the records that these projections were inaccurate.
• But FTA’s projections were accurate for 1968, 1969,1970 and so on--When, why and how did this come about.
• We can infer here that FTA must have reviewed its previous projections and then only it could have been possible for them to come up with another projection but a more accurate one.

Question stem analysis
Of the following claims, which is most strongly supported by the statements given?
The following options are conclusions made on the basis of the information given in the passage. Which option finds the strongest support from the passage?

Answer Choice Analysis

A
Understand the choice

This option says that Goro’s GNP kept fluctuating volatilely between 1963 and 1994

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

As per the passage, we only have information about FTA’s lack of accuracy in the 5-year projections and its accuracy in the previous year projections. So, we know that the FTA was not very accurate all the time. Neither was it inaccurate all the time. But no information is given about the actual GNP of Goro when it was predicted inaccurately or when it was predicted accurately. Therefore, we cannot find any support in the passage for this answer choice.

Hence, this is not the correct answer.

B
Understand the choice

 Before 1995, Goro had not given out any information about itself that was supposed to deliberately mislead the agency while it made its five-year projections

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

This option implies that in 1995, Goro gave out misleading information. We know that in 1994, information about Goro became newly available. But we cannot infer that this information was intended to mislead or not. Neither can we infer this was the first time such information became available. And we, in fact, cannot really say how this information became available. Whether Goro itself gave out misleading information cannot be deduced. Therefore, we cannot say for sure whether Goro gave out misleading information only since 1995 and not before that.

Hence, this is not the answer.

C
Understand the choice

This option gives says that the amount (which was the difference between the inaccurately projected GNP and the actual GNP) by which the agency underestimated the GNP had the tendency to increase over time.

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

Let us say, for e.g., that the first 5-year projection that FTA made was for 5million. The actual GNP turned out to be 8 million. The next time the projection was for 6 million, but the actual GNP was 10 million. Next, it was for 7 million whereas actual GNP was 12 million. So as per the choice, this is what happened. Do we have any data in the passage to support this? No.

Hence, this is not the correct choice.

D
Understand the choice

This option says that even before the new information about Goro became available, the FTA knew that some (meaning at least 1 and could be more) of its 5-year projections were inaccurate.

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

As per the passage, we know that

FTA’s prediction in 1963 would be for Goro’s GNP in 1969 and in 1964 it would be for 1970 and in1965 it would be for 1971 and so on. We know from the records that these projections were inaccurate.
But FTA’s projections were accurate for 1968, 1969,1970 and so on--When, why and how did this come about.
Here we can infer that FTA knew it was inaccurate in at least some of the cases (meaning at least 1 and could be more) in its projections and so it made a new projection, and this time was able to come up with a more accurate one.

Hence, this option finds support from the passage.

E
Understand the choice

This says FTA’s 5-year projections of Goro’s GNP had no influence or did not make any difference on the economic planning in Marut.

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

This option is completely out of the context. We have no idea at all about the economy or the economic planning of either of the countries. We also do not know the kind of relationship that exists between the two countries. We can only guess why Marut follows Goro’s GNP or predicts it, but we cannot say with surety why it is so.

Hence, this cannot be inferred from the information given in the passage.

Premises:

In 1994, some new information came to light about Goro. So the Marut agency reviewing its records.
It revealed that since 1963, every year agency's forecast of Goro's 5 yr later GNP was an underestimate. So in 1963, agency underestimated 1968 GNP.
It also revealed that since 1963, every year agency's estimate of Goro's previous year GNP was accurate. So in 1969, agency accurately estimated 1968 GNP.

(A) Goro's GNP fluctuated greatly between 1963 and 1994.
Not necessary. GNP could have been similar though estimate could have varied greatly depending on various factors taken into account.

(B) Prior to 1995, Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency in making its five-year projections.
Whether Goro released data to mislead Marut or not, we don't know. Marut agency could itself have made mistakes.

(C) The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time.
Again, not necessary. We usually expect GNP to increase over time and might expect the underestimation to accumulate but note that the data given in the argument supports nothing of the sorts. Perhaps the agency underestimated 1968 GNP by 20% but underestimated 1969 GNP by 16% and so on... perhaps GNP decreased in some years. The numbers can change in any way and the estimates can change in any way too as long as 5 year projection are less than actuals.

(D) Even before the new information came to light, the agency had reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.
This is true. In 1969, the agency did have reason to think that five year old projections were inaccurate. That is why when it reviewed and made fresh estimate of 1968 numbers in 1969, the GNP number was different. If it had no reason to believe that the five-year projections were inaccurate, the estimate number for 1968 GNP in 1969 would have been same as the projection number in 1963.
This is the answer.

(E) The agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut.
How it impacted Marut, or whether it did, is irrelevant.

Answer (D)

To explain why D is correct:

Let's say for example, that in 1963, the agency predicted 1968 GNP to be X amount.
Let's fast forward to 1969, when the agency was able to tell what the 1968 GNP actually was, say Y amount.

So at this point, the agency could make a simple comparison of X vs Y. The agency could then tell their prediction of the 1968 GNP in 1963 was way under. In other words, they had reason to believe their prediction of the 1968 GNP was inaccurate.

Other answer choices are wrong for obvious reasons.

Will go for D
Reason: The projection for 5 years was REPEATEDLY underestimated + Projection for last year was REPEATEDLY accurate. It means that even when estimators were having accurate data for one year, they repeatedly forecast wrong data for 5 years. Therefor agency was not thinking at all.

Lets see what is happening here :

Since 1963 F.T.A has been making 1) 5 year predictions inaccurately but 2) making calculations for previous year accurately.

So, if in 1963 it made predictions for next 5 years as follows : 64-5 mil , 65-6 mil , 66- 6 mil , 67 - 5 mil , 68 - 5 mil . . We know that these predictions are inaccurate/underestimated.

Now, 2 years later in 1965, F.T.A does the calculation for GNP of 1964 and finds out the actual value is 8 million. Now the agency should have found out its mistake in predicting the GNP in 1964 itself because the prediction it made in 1963 about 1964 did not co-incide with the actual value of GNP.

So, Even before the new information came to light, the agency had reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.

In 1994, Marut got some actual info on Goro.
Marut found that since 1963, their projection of what Goro's GNP would be five years later was a serious underestimate but their estimate for the previous year—a Goro state secret—was accurate.

So prior to 1994, Marut did not have this info so they used to predict future GNP and estimate last year's GNP.

In 1963, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1968 and would estimate 1962's GNP.
In 1964, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1969 and would estimate 1963's GNP.
In 1965, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1970 and would estimate 1964's GNP.
In 1966, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1971 and would estimate 1965's GNP.
In 1967, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1972 and would estimate 1966's GNP.
In 1968, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1973 and would estimate 1967's GNP.
In 1969, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1974 and would estimate 1968's GNP.

Now think - In 1969, Marut estimated 1968's GNP again. But in 1963, they had predicted 1968's number differently. The same would have happened every year from now on.

So even before 1994, they would have reason to believe that their 5 yr predictions are not accurate. They themselves revised their estimates 6 yrs later and did not stick to their predictions of 6 yrs ago.

Hence (D) is correct.

Hi Experts / chetan2u,

I was able to choose the correct answer D because I did not find any other option correct. As its a must be true question then we can eliminate option which talk about extra information.

A) We can't infer that GNP fluctuated GREATLY. All we know that the projections were not accurate. So eliminate
b) We don't know anything about data which Goro provided. ELIMINATE
C) The amount INCREASE OVER TIME--- We don't know---Eliminate
E) Economic planning -- OUT of Box-- Eliminate

In the end only D remains. So I opted for it.
But I don;t know anything, whats's going on in the argument.

The rough idea that I have is there is a agency which is making projections for Goro. Lets say present year is 2015
and the projection for Goro for 2020 is 10 Million but the agency underestimated it to 6 Million.
As mentioned in the argument- "The review also revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year -a Goro state secret- very accurately."

So, lets say that the real projection for 2019 is 5 Million but this time Agency projected correctly.
That's all I can comprehend from the argument.

How can we infer D..?
Please assist.

In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency's records were reviewed in 1994 in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro. The review revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate. The review also revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year -a Goro state secret- very accurately.

Of the following claims, which is most strongly supported by the statements given ?

A) Goro's GNP fluctuated greatly between 1963 and 1994.
B) Prior to 1995, Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency in making its five-year projections.
C) The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time.
D) Even before the new information came to light, the agency had reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.
E) The agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut.

My 2 cents.
The answer has to be true based on the given stem. With this thinking, we can cross all but D.
For D, I could not understand the reasoning but I think I get it now.
So, since 1963, the agency estimated what GNP would be in 1968, inaccurately.
Since 1963, the agency estimated what GNP would be in the previous year, correctly.

This means that in 1969, the agency had two numbers to compare and probably realized oops, they were wrong at times.

This first picture is what I think a better prompt would look like.

This second one is what the prompt as it is now, tells me.

I also think there is some ambiguity with the words "Foreign Trade Agency." Could some of the "agents" within the "agency" have one opinion and other agents have a dissenting opinion. Is that why the 5 year projections remained "a serious underestimate" from 1963 to 1994 with no improvement?

Hi Argp,

This is a tough question. There are two things I ask students to keep in mind here about the situation before the data became available:
1. "Of the following claims, which is most strongly supported by the statements given?" ← We need to mark the best option (but that option may not be perfect).

2. Projections ≠ estimates ← The trade agency people can be reasonably expected to have more faith in their estimates than in their projections. There are two reasons for this: (a) the projections involve a time period of 5 years, whereas the estimates involve a time period of only 1 year, and (b) it should be easier to estimate something that actually happened a year ago than to make a projection for something that will happen 5 years in the future.

Now, let's take another look at D. The trade agency knew that every single +5 projection was (very) different from the corresponding −1 estimate. Here's where point 2 helps. If the projections and estimates never match, the trade agency would feel that something is wrong. Maybe one, maybe both. If the estimates are more likely to be correct, suspicion would fall on the projections. Option D gives us a softer version of "all projections were wrong" ("at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate").

Finally, point 1: the other options are just not as good (the probability that we'll need to use elimination goes up in tough questions).

Understand the Passage

In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency’s records were reviewed in 1994 in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro.In Marut, some agency’s records were reviewed in 1994 after some new information about neighboring Goro became available.

The review revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency’s projection of what Goro’s gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate.Every year since 1963, the agency made a prediction about what Goro’s GNP would be five years later. All these predictions were serious underestimates. (Now, the newly available information about Goro probably contains data about its GNP since 1963. On comparing, we find that Marut’s agency was greatly underestimating Goro’s GNP.)

The review also revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency estimated Goro’s GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.The agency also made another estimate every year: what was Goro’s GNP for the previous year. In light of new information, we can see that these estimates were very accurate.

Predict an Answer

This question is an inference question. The passage contains a list of facts. There is no conclusion in the passage.

The agency made two estimates every year since 1963: one about Goro’s GNP five years later and one about Goro’s GNP for the previous year. Till 1994, the former estimate was always a serious underestimate, and the latter estimate was always very accurate.

Let’s consider the year 1982. One estimate of Goro’s GNP for year 1982 must have been made in 1977, and another one in 1983. Since the former one was a serious underestimate and the latter one very accurate, we can infer that the latter one was greater (in numerical value) than the former one. And this difference must have existed for every such pair of estimates.

Option Analysis

(A) Incorrect. We cannot infer this statement from the given facts. It is possible that Goro’s GNP remained the same from 1963 to 1994. This possibility does not contradict any of the facts given in the passage. Besides, the option says, ‘fluctuated GREATLY’. Since we cannot be sure whether Goro’s GNP fluctuated, we cannot say that it fluctuated GREATLY.

(B) Incorrect. The reason why Goro had not released its data before 1995 is not given. One of the possible results of Goro’s not releasing data was that the agency did not make accurate predictions. However, we cannot say that this was the intention of Goro for not releasing data. Confusing an implication of a certain action with the intention behind that action is one of the very common traps in CR (and even in RC). For example: If the passage says that X resulted in Y, the option will say that the intention behind undertaking X was to cause Y. This option is incorrect. We cannot talk about the intention just by looking at the result. I may take GMAT to get into some degree program. However, I may end up doing GMAT tutoring after scoring spectacularly high on GMAT. This does not mean that I took GMAT to get into GMAT tutoring. Right?

(C) Incorrect. It is entirely possible, given the facts, that the agency underestimated what Goro’s GNP would be five years later by the SAME amount year after year. It is also possible that the amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro DECREASED over time i.e. the five-year projections became less and less serious underestimates over the years (less serious than previous years; however, still serious in the absolute sense).

For example: In 1963, the agency underestimated Goro’s GNP for 1968 by $50 billion. In 1964, the agency underestimated Goro’s GNP for 1969 by $49.9 billion. In 1965, the agency underestimated Goro’s GNP for 1970 by $49.8 billion. And so on. All of these estimates are probably serious underestimates, but they are probably becoming less and less serious over time.

(D) Correct. We can infer that the agency had REASON TO THINK that some of its 5-year projections were inaccurate. We, however, CANNOT INFER that the agency actually THOUGHT so.

Let’s understand how.

In 1963, the agency would have made a projection for Goro’s GNP for the year 1968. Let’s say it was X.

In 1969, the agency would have again estimated Goro’s GNP for 1968. Let’s say it was Y.

We know from the passage that X was a serious underestimate and that Y was a very accurate estimate. Given this information, we can understand that X and Y must have been very different numbers. Now, since Y was a later estimate and was very different from X, there was a reason to believe that the X was an inaccurate estimate. Why? Because both X and Y cannot be accurate while being substantially different and because Y is a recent estimate and thus expectedly a better estimate than X.

So, we can say that the agency had reason to think that some of its five-year projections were inaccurate. However, since we don’t know that the agency compared its 5-year projections with its last-year estimates, we cannot be sure that the agency actually thought that some of its projections were inaccurate.

(E) Incorrect. Whether the five-year projections had an impact on economic planning in Marut cannot be inferred at all from the passage. The projections might have had a substantial impact on the economic planning in Marut. This possibility does not contradict anything given in the passage.

Yes, the TOTAL sum of the underestimates would obviously increase, but that is not what choice (C) says. In fact, your example disproves choice (C). Choice (C) would only be accurate if the DIFFERENCE between the estimates and the actual numbers increased each year, for example:

Year 1: underestimated by 2 million
Year 2: underestimated by 2.5 million
Year 3: underestimated by 3 million
etc.

As your example shows, the amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP may have increased or decreased or remained the same year to year, for example:

Year 1: underestimated by 2 million
Year 2: underestimated by 2 million (amount by which they underestimated remained the same)
Year 3: underestimated by 1 million (amount by which they underestimated DECREASED)
Year 4: underestimated by 3 million (amount by which they underestimated INCREASED)
etc.

All we know is that the agency seriously underestimated what the GNP's would be five years later. We have no idea whether the SIZE of their error decreased, increased, or remained the same year to year, so choice (C) cannot be determined.

To strengthen an argument, you must be given a conclusion in the argument. As given, this argument has only premises (facts). What are we going to strengthen here? The question of whether (B) would strengthen or not does not arise.

Hi MHIKER,

You could go through this post, if you haven't already.

In Marut, Foreign Trade agency's records were reviewed in 1994 in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro.

It is given that the review revealed that-
every year since 1963
the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.
And that
the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate
We need to find an option that is most strongly supported by the statements given

(A) Goro's GNP fluctuated greatly between 1963 and 1994.
There’s no data to support this. Eliminate

(B) Prior to 1995, Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency in making its five-year projections.
There’s no data that suggests that Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency. Eliminate.

(C) The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time.

The agency’s projection was a serious underestimate. The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time is not supported by the statements given. Eliminate

(D) Even before the new information came to light, the agency had reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.

This is supported by the argument.
It is given that the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.
Only the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate.
This shows that there was a difference in both the figures ( one- that is almost accurate and the other one that was a serious underestimate) This gives them a reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.
Correct.

(E) The agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut.
It is beyond the scope of the argument to say that the agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

size of this explanation is equivalent to that of an LSAT reading comprehension.