Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 01:24 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 01:24 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
02 Dec 2021, 03:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
Why B is incorrect?
Please let me know why my reasoning is incorrect.
(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements
Yes, If submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the requirement and if he has completed that requirement, he is likely to participate in the election. Yes definitely strengthens the argument.
No. If there are other ways to fulfill the requirements, we can't be sure about the conclusion because it depends on whether he fulfils all the other requirements. So this case will mildly decrease my belief in the conclusion.
B attacks the reason (fulfill the requirement for candidacy) to arrive at conclusion. Then why it is irrelevant?
Thank you for your time.
Why B is incorrect?
Please let me know why my reasoning is incorrect.
(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements
Yes, If submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the requirement and if he has completed that requirement, he is likely to participate in the election. Yes definitely strengthens the argument.
No. If there are other ways to fulfill the requirements, we can't be sure about the conclusion because it depends on whether he fulfils all the other requirements. So this case will mildly decrease my belief in the conclusion.
B attacks the reason (fulfill the requirement for candidacy) to arrive at conclusion. Then why it is irrelevant?
Thank you for your time.
08 Dec 2021, 09:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
Sneha2021
Let's start by taking a close look at (B):
Quote:
As you say, if the answer to this were yes, we'd know that submitting a list of holdings is the only way to fulfill the requirements. But just because it's the only way doesn't mean that Bergeron did it because he's planning to run for governor.
To illustrate this point - imagine we want to prove that someone is intending to visit their cousin. As evidence, we point out this person just got a car. Would it strengthen our argument if we could prove that the only way to get to their cousin's house is by car?
Not really. This person may have got the car to drive to their cousin's house, or they may have got it for some completely different reason (to drive to work). In same way, Bergeron may have submitted the list because he plans to run for governor, or he may have done it for some other reason. The fact that it's the only way doesn't help us evaluate the argument.
But what if the answer to (B) were no?
This would mean there are other ways for Bergeron to fulfill the requirement. But just because there are other ways doesn't make it less likely that he's planning to run for governor.
Going back to our car example - imagine we learn that using a car is NOT the only way to get to the cousin's house. Let's say it's perfectly possible to get there by bus. But that doesn't help us evaluate whether the person is planning to visit their cousin. Just because there are other ways doesn't strengthen the idea that they are NOT going to visit their cousin.
In the same way, just because there are other ways to fulfill the requirement doesn't mean that Bergeron isn't planning to run for governor. Nor does it mean that Bergeron would need to "fulfill all the other requirements." It only tells us that other options for fulfilling the requirement exist.
So no matter the answer to (B), it wouldn't help us evaluate the argument that "Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year," so (B) is incorrect.
I hope that helps!
16 Dec 2021, 13:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja
Hi GMATNinja - going back to the car analogy in the purple font you mentioned above -- i tried to understand how option E would play out in such an analagous scenario.
Quote:
-- If Yes : i dont think this strengthens because Sam did rent a car IN THE PAST prior to visting his cousins in the past. But that doesnt strengthen he has rented the car out this time specifically to visit his cousins..
-- If No : i dont think this has any impact. What happened in the past has no bearing on the present. Maybe he didnt rent out a car but still visited his cousins in the past. That does not weaken anything about the present.
Thus - same criticism on option E regarding the original question.
Just because something happened / did not happen in the past -- how does that help us evaluate about something in the present tense ?
thoughts on where i must be going wrong
01 Feb 2022, 12:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
jabhatta2
The right answer choice here should be the one "most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument."
Notice we aren't looking for something that proves the journalist's argument is correct. In other words, we're not looking for a rock-solid piece of evidence that Bergeron "will be a candidate for governor this year." The right answer simply has to be the most useful of all the options for evaluating the argument.
Let's take another look at (E):
Quote:
If the answer is "yes," what does that tell us? Well, it that shows that submitting the requirement doesn't necessarily mean Bergeron is going to run. Sure, it doesn't PROVE that he won't be running this year. But it does weaken the journalist's argument that he's "likely" to run. Keep in mind -- the journalist's argument hinges on the idea that submitting the requirement = Bergeron is likely to run for governor. Since (E) weakens that link, it helps us evaluate the argument.
If the answer is "no," on the other hand, the journalist's argument is strengthened. Because it would show that Bergeron has taken a step towards running for governor he's never taken in the past.
Of course, the answer to (E) certainly wouldn't prove the journalist's argument either way. As you suggest, past behavior isn't a rock solid indicator of present behavior. But here's the key -- we're not looking for rock-solid evidence. We just need something that will be the "most helpful" for "evaluating the argument" that Bergeron is "likely" to run. And since (E) is more helpful than the other choices, it's correct. (In case it helps, check out this explanation of why the other answer choices are not useful for evaluating the argument).
But what about the car analogy? In general, I wouldn't worry to much about analogies, since they will always differ from the question in significant ways. But in case it helps, let's consider your Sam example.
Argument: Sam has never visited his cousin during the summer in the past, but renting a car is necessary for visiting his cousin. Since he has rented a car this summer, he is likely to visit his cousin.
Answer choice: Has Sam ever rented a car during the summer?
What if the answer were "yes?" Well, if Sam has rented a car and NOT visited his cousin in the past, it shows that he has rented a car for other reasons than to visit his cousin. As you say, this doesn't PROVE that he won't visit his cousin this summer. But it does weaken the idea that renting a car = Sam is likely to visit his cousin. So it would be helpful for evaluating that argument.
Similarly, if he has NOT rented a car in the past, it shows that he's doing something differently this year. And since one reason to rent a car is to visit his cousin, this strengthens the idea that renting a car = Sam is likely to visit his cousin. It definitely doesn't prove that he's going to visit his cousin, but it could helps us evaluate the argument.
I hope that helps!
