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

 It is currently 17 Aug 2018, 13:59

### 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

# Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Posts: 553
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2011, 13:35
1
For those who are interested, here's why (D) is a wrong answer:

The effect: There were fewer articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators.

The stated cause (the one we should attack): Some accelerators were unavailable for research.

To refute the cause and effect relationship we need to, for example, find an alternative cause.

(D) doesn't accomplish this because had it been true that other functioning accelerators were available for multiple experiments, the effect would have never occurred in the first place. Well of course if those accelerators hadn't been already used at their full capacities. But even if that were the case, (D) still wouldn't be a great alternative cause of the decline in the number of published articles.

(E) provides an alternative explanation of the stated effect.

The only thing that still bothers me is the word 'lately' in (E). But all in all (E) is a clear winner now.
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 154
GPA: 3.5
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2012, 23:53
I for one moment though about D but few particle accelerators should not hamper the articles presented but if the publication is against printing such articles then the number of such articles will definitely decline,as a result I chose E.
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 48
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2012, 07:22
1
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

conclusion : the decrease in number of publication last year was due to unavailability of particle accelerator.
premise 1/ reason : several particle accelerators were out of service

to weaken this argument/conclusion lets look out for an alternate reason leading to conclusion. this is exactly wht option E does, it shows decrease is due to changes in editorial policies.
Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2010
Posts: 183
WE 1: 4 yr IT
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2012, 11:38
i too am stuck between E and D. can someone explain this properly?
IMO E says particle accelerator research which is not same as stimulus which says research involving particle accelerator. and D seems to negate the reason that low availability of accltrs is the cause.
_________________

this time, we play for keeps

Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 11
GMAT Date: 04-30-2012
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2012, 14:27
E seems to be the strongest one due to the reasons mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Can we have the OA please?
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 289
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2012, 23:47
Straight E its the only one making sense here
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 220
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.38
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2012, 19:03
1
D- even if particle accelerators can be used by multiple groups, they didn't state how many groups there are and how many particle accelerators there are. perhaps if the ratio changed, then maybe we could consider this, but even in the premises they never excluded the possibility of sharing.

B- this one seemed trickier to exclude.. if the time scientists wait is decreasing, one would assume that it can't be the accelerators being broken causing the lower articles.. ie scientists have even faster access. but what if the fact that the accelerator is broken, many groups don't even bother pursuing their experiment and move onto other things. then they technically have zero wait.

say there are 4 researchers waiting 1 day to use a machine, then say the machines are improved so the researchers only have to wait 1/2 day (ans B), well there are still only 4 articles published, although faster perhaps

with E, if their articles aren't even published, then it shows the wait time has no effect on the number of articles.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 5
GPA: 3.97
WE: Analyst (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2012, 12:52
1
what threw me off was the present/future tense of the answer E - "recent changes" and "will be accepted for publication", considering that the question talks about "last year". I automatically assumed that these recent changes couldn't have any effect on articles published last year. Has anyone else noticed it?
Manager
Status: Rising GMAT Star
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 126
Location: Philippines
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.22
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2012, 23:28
narangvaibhav wrote:
Why is D option not correct?

The best way to answer this is to determine the parts of the argument:

Premise: 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.

Premise: Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs.

Conclusion: It is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.

In here we could see that causation. Simply put: Out of service particle accelerators ----> Low number of articles

The question is asking us to undermine (weaken) the argument. We know that one of the ways to weaken an argument is to introduce another cause to the intended effect.

This is the reason why D is the answer. D provides us another cause that 'caused' the effect. The importance of determining the parts of the argument is that it helps us determine which among the answer choices 'destroys' the conclusion. In this case, D totally demolishes it.
_________________

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
- T. Roosevelt

Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2012, 15:31
mysterio 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

conclusion : the decrease in number of publication last year was due to unavailability of particle accelerator.
premise 1/ reason : several particle accelerators were out of service

to weaken this argument/conclusion lets look out for an alternate reason leading to conclusion. this is exactly wht option E does, it shows decrease is due to changes in editorial policies.

I chose B, because B tells us that scientists actually had more availably to the particle accelerators bc of decreased wait time. Shouldn't this weaken the argument? Thanks!
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 51
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2012, 14:35
1
3
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 baseball-paradox-139713.html#p1126348

The 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
_________________

Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Intern
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Posts: 21
GPA: 4
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2013, 20:25
I don't see why D couldn't be chosen. E refers to "recent changes" and says that these recent changes *will* affect publication in the future. However, the prompt is talking about a trend that already happened and refers to events that are 1-2 years old, not recent. Why would a change in editorial policies that occurs after the trend affect the amount of articles published last year?

I think D makes sense because if particle accelerators can be used by multiple people in a year, then scientists who would have used the now-broken accelerators can now double up on the working ones. This means that there is not a decline in availability of particle accelerators, so the decrease in articles would have had to come from another source.

Can anyone explain this? The OG guide and the MGMAT video explanation don't even address these concerns.
Director
Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 837
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2013, 09:05
nonameee wrote:
For those who are interested, here's why (D) is a wrong answer:

The effect: There were fewer articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators.

The stated cause (the one we should attack): Some accelerators were unavailable for research.

To refute the cause and effect relationship we need to, for example, find an alternative cause.

(D) doesn't accomplish this because had it been true that other functioning accelerators were available for multiple experiments, the effect would have never occurred in the first place. Well of course if those accelerators hadn't been already used at their full capacities. But even if that were the case, (D) still wouldn't be a great alternative cause of the decline in the number of published articles.

(E) provides an alternative explanation of the stated effect.

The only thing that still bothers me is the word 'lately' in (E). But all in all (E) is a clear winner now.

I also got stuck between D and E, chose D.

"The journalist assumes that lack of access to accelerators is the main reason..."

Undermining this statement option D correctly points out that there cant be any shortage because it can be shared by more than one group....So the reason of declining is something else....
Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 131
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2013, 10:12

Conclusion: the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.

(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.

Choice D tells us that particle accelerators can be more effectively used to publish more number of articles. But it is not what the conclusion of the argument is concerned about. The right answer must find an alternative reason for the low number of articles.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

Intern
Joined: 08 May 2014
Posts: 1
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2014, 11:54
Hi!

Can someone pls explain why the correct answer is not D.

I thought if these accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments then the lack of these accelerators cannot be seen as a reason for the decline of these articles. And that is clearly a flaw in the argument.
Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 5
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2014, 02:40
I really loved the shared information.... Its very helpful for me.... Thanks for sharing.
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 165
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 05:00
Alternate reason for the effect. Hence E weakens the conclusion
_________________

Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Posts: 32
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 08:16
E is defenitely the strongest answer.....except for "recent".
In my opinion, in this particular questions "recent" should stand for last month, maybe a month before last.

Of course, "recent" is a relative notion.

If we speak, for example, about a ten years period - then "recent" would mean, say, last year or a year before last. I think this is logical.

But is we speak about a two years period (as in the question), I think "recent" is totally unacceptable to identify the period at some point of time between a year before last and a last year.
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 156
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2014, 22:24
I don't understand why A is eliminated.
To me A says there is no problem in the publication for particle accelerators. Actually no of submission was few so the publication is. There is nothing to do with the accelerator issue.

I understand Why E is answer. I need explanation for A
Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 561
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2015, 08:50
1
suyash wrote:
What's wrong with D.
Both D and E are equal contenders.Both of them are weakning the argument in their own ways
D is weakening the argument by stating that
"Although the effect occurs, the cause was not the reason for the occurence of the effect"

E is weakening the argument by stating that
"The stated cause was not the reason that the effect occured"

How do you break the tie between the two, as both of them qualify equally in weakening the argument.
I find D more appealing in that, E mentions the word recent, which may mean different for different people.
It may mean this year, or it may mean previous 5 years. Who knows ?

Somebody kindly enlighten.

I had also to chose between E&D - I've picked E, because it states an alternative Reason. But I found D is also weakening the argument. I saw your explanation for D and actually at the point realised why D is wrong.

Although the effect occurs, the cause was not the reason for the occurence of the effect the fact is that the effect doesn't occur -->> if 1 accelerator can be used multiple times than you won't have a drop in the number of articles - the effect did not take place in this construcition + the argument is not weakened it just don't exist after D - we don't have neither the effect nor the cause (the availability didn't fall if they can be used mupltiple time)

Explantion from a GMAT Expert on the beatthegmat: The problem with D is that it doesn't address the essence of the problem, which is the difference between this year and previous years.

As stated, D is something that is true for accelerators in general-and that thus has always been true, both in previous years and now. So, it can't explain a difference between this year and previous years.

Update 16.04.15
Second try - had to struggle between B and E:
According to the CR Bible B is wrong:

Structire: Low availability (CAUSE) --> (EFFECT) Low # of articles
Answer B) Says that the availability have not declined - Cause doesn't oocur, so does the effect (if we have a better availability of the accelerators, then the # of articles must also be high)
--> This destroys the whole argument.

A) Find an alternative clause - is not the case here (E plays this role)
B) If cause occurs, the effect doesn't occur - is not the case here
C) Effect occurs, cause did not occur - is not the case here
D) Reversed relationship - is not the case here
E) Statistical problem - is not the case here
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the &nbs [#permalink] 18 Feb 2015, 08:50

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 52 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.