GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 05 Dec 2019, 23:06

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1487
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64

Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 14:17
3
13
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:40) correct 40% (02:05) wrong based on 454 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films. Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did. This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) 2-D films are not artistically appropriate for the narratives many directors wish to depict.

(B) Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

(C) Films shot in 2-D could be made as easily by using 3-D technologies.

(D) The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.

(E) The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 97
Location: United States

Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 19:32
1
chesstitans wrote:
In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films. Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did. This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

A 2-D films are not artistically appropriate for the narratives many directors wish to depict.
B Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.
C Films shot in 2-D could be made as easily by using 3-D technologies.
D The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.
E The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.

A - Irrelevant
B - Not an assumption as per stem so out of scope
C - No mention - Out of scope
D - Out of scope
E - Most popular film made in 3D and 3D is lucrative. Implying more popular movie earn more than less popular.
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1714

Show Tags

11 Aug 2018, 04:57
1

Official Explanation

In this argument, we have the conclusion that 3-D films make more money than 2-D films, based on the evidence that they are more popular. To find the assumption that makes this argument work, we have to identify what’s missing to link the evidence to the conclusion. Here, (E) is the best answer, as it correctly creates the link between high popularity and high earnings that the given evidence and conclusion assume.

(A) is concerned with the content of the films themselves. If an answer choice like this tempts you, evaluate whether it would still make sense if you replaced 3-D and 2-D films with other types of products--oranges and apples, for example. If you’ve identified the correct assumption, this shift in content shouldn’t matter as long as the products make sense in context. Here, content is irrelevant to the assumption.

Similarly, the ability to make 3-D films (B) or the ease with which these films are made (C) doesn’t have anything to do with the link between popularity and revenues that the conclusion and evidence demand.

(D) may be tempting, because it makes sense that the most popular films were 3-D if most films were 3-D, but it still does not engage on the issue of price, which is vital to making the assumption that the most popular films make the most money.

_________________
Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Director
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 592
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76

Show Tags

12 Jan 2018, 10:09
chesstitans wrote:
In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films. Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did. This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

A 2-D films are not artistically appropriate for the narratives many directors wish to depict.
B Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.
C Films shot in 2-D could be made as easily by using 3-D technologies.
D The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.
E The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.

only catch is word lucrative ....missing this single word can make E out of scope
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GPA: 3.6
WE: Marketing (Hospitality and Tourism)

Show Tags

16 Aug 2019, 00:12
In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films. Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did. This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

Tough One to catch, but focus on lucrative. Hence only E must be true for the argument to hold true.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) 2-D films are not artistically appropriate for the narratives many directors wish to depict.

(B) Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

(C) Films shot in 2-D could be made as easily by using 3-D technologies.

(D) The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.

(E) The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.

IMO E
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 210
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9

Show Tags

12 Sep 2019, 13:05
Context:
In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films.

Evidence used to draw the conclusion:
Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did.

Conclusion:
This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?
Falsification scenario: The 3d movies cost less than 2d movies
Assumption: 3d movies costs more than 2d movies

(A) 2-D films are not artistically appropriate for the narratives many directors wish to depict.
irrelevant

(B) Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.
irrelevant

(C) Films shot in 2-D could be made as easily by using 3-D technologies.
irrelevant

(D) The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.
irrelevant

(E) The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.
Correct
Re: In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have   [#permalink] 12 Sep 2019, 13:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by