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

 It is currently 19 Aug 2018, 11:00

### 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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2015
Posts: 6
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2015, 16:03
BrainLab wrote:
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

I disagree with your explanation against D. I personally think this question has some serious problem as D and E could go hand in hand or work separately (just like option D in data sufficiency). D doesn't have to address the difference over years. D only needs to prove that the argument presented didn't address the difference.

Very simply to explain why i think D works - journalist's argument: number of machines (cause 1) influences machine availability (effect 1 AND cause 2), which influences # of articles (effect 2). Option D says: nope, number of machines (cause 1) DOESNT influence machine availability (effect 1 AND cause 2), and certainly is not the reason for effect 2.

Just finger crossed and hope I don't get this kind of **** question in a real test because it makes me wanna argue with someone on the spot.
 e-GMAT Discount Codes Optimus Prep Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 10
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2016, 11:14
Straight E.

Marking out D as :
1) Not sufficient info given.
2) Even though if 1 PA could be used for multiple experiments and in that case no of articles would be same or could be more, but that doesn't meet with the argument , which already states that no of articles have decreased.
3) Cause->Effect relation still hold true. No affect on the co-orleation wrt to this option
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2016
Posts: 9
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: Imperial '18
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2016, 14:08
(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.

So, it was not due to the fact that we had less particle accelerators but because of change in
the policy that the number of artiles were decreased. Statement E clearly explain the alternate cause for the stated effect.

i will go for E.
_________________

Please press 1 kudos if you like my post .Thanks

Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 603
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2016, 02:19
2
THE CORRECT ANSWER IS E

Consider this analogy
Last summer hundreds of parrot regularly flew from nearby jungle and came to your garden to drink water from the water-fountain you installed in the corner of the garden
This summer no parrot came to drink water from your water-fountain
Wrong conclusion :- All parrots must be dead thats why they are not coming to drink water.
Right conclusion :- Last year due to draught and no rainfall, the river inside the jungle was dry. This year the river is full of water because of excess rainfall and cooler temperature.

Similarly:- Last year all particle accelerator were not out of service. They were working and lots of experiment were happening and lots of those articles were submitted to journal.
Then why were there less articles about particle physics journals. Because despite being submitted they were not published.
Why were the not published .. because new policies have limited the total number of such articles that can be published.

(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.

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

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 196
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 470 Q30 V20
GMAT 2: 620 Q42 V33
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2016, 10:47
1
I disagree with "irrelevant reason" for dropping an answer choice, there must be an especially when we are talking about a couple of grants dollars cost per question from ACT.

Therefore, for every single option, there is a reasoning behind it and somehow it weakens the argument. The point is, which option is fallacy-free, or in other words, which option ALWAYS weaken the argument.

Stem's Conclusion: The low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
What happened? Particle accelerators out of service
What happened? #'s of articles was lower last year than it had been in previous years

Always bearing this conjuncture above in mind, I tackle the options

Quote:
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year 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.

the reasoning behind each option should be ALWAYS clear.

What are the features that the test maker want me to believe in each of the option?

(A) all submissions published
The test makers want to convince me that a lower number of articles is result from the scarcity of content from the maintenance/shutdown of particle accelerators. However, scientists can submit new research using same data from before the shutdown. Therefore, the same amount of articles is kept, and the given reason cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

B) Less wait to access the accelerator
The test taker thinks that the fewer scientists wait, the more experiments they do. So, who guarantees that more experiments = more publications? It may be true or not. It can weaken or strengthen the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(C) The number of journals remains unchanged
The test taker thinks that less publication can be affected by the amount of journals available. The idea could be valid unless we presuppose that journals always publish a limited amount of article. Not always weaken the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(D) more than one group use the accelerator in any given year.
The test taker thinks that analysis takes an entire year, even if that is true, other publications with data with other years or conjoint or whatever cannot be published, which is a lie. Therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(E) Editorial policies changes of those that publish decreased the likelihood of publication
The test taker assures that the low-end of the publication chain will close the tap, which is a good reason to believe
ALWAYS weaken the argument
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 289
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 06:34
felippemed wrote:
I disagree with "irrelevant reason" for dropping an answer choice, there must be an especially when we are talking about a couple of grants dollars cost per question from ACT.

Therefore, for every single option, there is a reasoning behind it and somehow it weakens the argument. The point is, which option is fallacy-free, or in other words, which option ALWAYS weaken the argument.

Stem's Conclusion: The low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
What happened? Particle accelerators out of service
What happened? #'s of articles was lower last year than it had been in previous years

Always bearing this conjuncture above in mind, I tackle the options

Quote:
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year 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.

the reasoning behind each option should be ALWAYS clear.

What are the features that the test maker want me to believe in each of the option?

(A) all submissions published
The test makers want to convince me that a lower number of articles is result from the scarcity of content from the maintenance/shutdown of particle accelerators. However, scientists can submit new research using same data from before the shutdown. Therefore, the same amount of articles is kept, and the given reason cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

B) Less wait to access the accelerator
The test taker thinks that the fewer scientists wait, the more experiments they do. So, who guarantees that more experiments = more publications? It may be true or not. It can weaken or strengthen the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(C) The number of journals remains unchanged
The test taker thinks that less publication can be affected by the amount of journals available. The idea could be valid unless we presuppose that journals always publish a limited amount of article. Not always weaken the argument, therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(D) more than one group use the accelerator in any given year.
The test taker thinks that analysis takes an entire year, even if that is true, other publications with data with other years or conjoint or whatever cannot be published, which is a lie. Therefore cannot ALWAYS weaken the argument

(E) Editorial policies changes of those that publish decreased the likelihood of publication
The test taker assures that the low-end of the publication chain will close the tap, which is a good reason to believe
ALWAYS weaken the argument

same side with you.
I disagree irrelevant explanation.

my GMAT1 is 470in AUG... work hard, hope catch up my goal 760 this year
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q47 V36
GPA: 3.4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2016, 02:39
E it is.

As it states another reason for not publishing the article.
Manager
Status: On a 600-long battle
Joined: 22 Apr 2016
Posts: 138
Location: Hungary
Schools: Erasmus '19
GMAT 1: 410 Q18 V27
GMAT 2: 490 Q35 V23
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2017, 22:00
In the OA E, how can 'Recent changes' refer to 'last year's decrease in publication'? I do understand that between D and E, E is the better choice, but D has merit to.

D says that there were more groups experimenting, now, did those groups have to be physics groups? Definitely not, so that could impact the number of physics journals being published.

Just my ten cents.
_________________

"When the going gets tough, the tough gets going!"

|Welcoming tips/suggestions/advices (you name it) to help me achieve a 600|

Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2018, 00:00
vineet474 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.

This is a simple one and you should destroy these questions in less than 1 min and 30 secs.. Here,s how to do it.
By looking at the conclusion and the stem, it is evident that the question is CAUSE AND AFFECT reasoning + WEAKEN question.

So by mapping the conlusion we see that :
PED (decline in availability of particle accelerators) {CAUSE} ---------->>>> LNOA (low number of
articles) {EFFECT}

In these types of questions, following options are to be considered:
A. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect
B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur
C. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur
D. Show that the stated relationship is in fact reversed
E. Show a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal
statement

Mostly answer will be from the first 2 or the last option (which is tricky).
Coming back to the question, find any alternate cause for the stated effect in AC,s. E best explains an alternate cause.

(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.

So, it was not due to the fact that we had less particle accelerators but because of change in
the policy that the number of artiles were decreased. Statement E clearly explain the alternate cause for the stated effect.

HENCE E. Hope it helps.

Any suggestions are welcomed.
-V

Still don't understand why (B) and (D) wrong
Answer choices (B) & (D) fit the option "although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur"

Will be appreciated, if anyone can explain.
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3690
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2018, 00:21
1
SuYiChung wrote:
Still don't understand why (B) and (D) wrong
Answer choices (B) & (D) fit the option "although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur"

Will be appreciated, if anyone can explain.

Hey SuYiChung ,

You need to understand the cause and effect concept well.

Whenever the effect happens in the past, there are 3 types of weakeners:

1. Alternate cause
2. Reverse Causation
3. Cause not happening before the effect.

Now, here cause is - Decline in the availability of accelerators.

Effect is : Less Particles Published.

Decline in the availability of accelerators --> Less Particles Published.

We need to weaken this, I can say there was another cause for less particles published. This is what option E is doing, hence is the correct answer.

Now, Let's talk about B and D.

B is saying scientists can get the accelerator sooner these days than earlier. It is no where telling us the reason for the decreased publication. Hence, wrong.

Similarly, D is saying you can use the accelerators for multiple experiments. So, what? We don't really know why the publication decreased. Hence, wrong.

Your reasoning "although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur" is wrong here. No effect is occurring in B and D. It is just telling us new information, which is irrelevant.

Does that make sense?
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2017
Posts: 52
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 720 Q47 V41
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2018, 08:45
I feel like there are many cases where different assumptions can prove a choice to be a correct one. For example, in this answer E "Recent changes" How recent were they? The passage talks about last's year number of articles. Is last year considered a recent past? In some other questions, the answer choice explanations stressed hardly on vague timing...
Intern
Status: ALL IN!
Joined: 18 Jun 2015
Posts: 5
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 2.9
WE: Business Development (Real Estate)
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2018, 08:19
A little tie between D and E. E wins for better relevancy to the provided info.
Re: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the &nbs [#permalink] 11 Jun 2018, 08:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 52 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

# 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®.