MarkSullivan wrote:
ankitranjan wrote:
Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle
accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major
research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of
articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year
actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last
several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
OA will be given tomorrow.
If You Like the question Consider KUDOS
My take on this one is pretty similar to the take I had on the Baseball Paradox problem, see
https://gmatclub.com/forum/baseball-par ... l#p1126348The short version is that any time you have a premise that describes some phenomenon and a conclusion that attempts to explain that phenomenon, you should look for
alternate explanations.
Since this is a
Weaken problem we want an answer that
provides one such alternate explanation.
Here, the phenomenon (given as a premise) is that fewer papers were published this year, and some accelerators were down recently. The explanation (conclusion) is that the downtime for the accelerators caused the decrease in published papers. We're looking for an answer choice that would result in a decrease in published papers but has nothing to do with the accelerator down time. Only (E) even comes close to accomplishing this!
The real take-away for this problem (as well as the Baseball Paradox) has nothing to do with the specific problems but rather is about how you should study for Assumptions Family question types on CR. Look for
patterns and
categories of assumptions and try to generalize everything you do. This will make you much more efficient at brainstorming assumptions and before you know it you'll be accurately predicting most of the correct answers on these problems.
Cheers,
Mark
Hello,
avigutmanI want to discuss more on the below comment by
MarkSullivanQuote:
The real take-away for this problem (as well as the Baseball Paradox) has nothing to do with the specific problems but rather is about how you should study for Assumptions Family question types on CR. Look for patterns and categories of assumptions and try to generalize everything you do. This will make you much more efficient at brainstorming assumptions and before you know it you'll be accurately predicting most of the correct answers on these problems.
What do we learn from this question that can be applied to Assumption Questions ?
My take:-
Given X is the likely cause of Y ,
X - decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Y - low number of articles
A valid assumption will be Z will not cause Y .
Say we change Option E to -
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have
not decreased the likelihood that
articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
Z - Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals
Y - articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
Is my understanding correct ?
Regards
close
05 May 2020, 04:12
