Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 14:35 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 14:35 |
|
|
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 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 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 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
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 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 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 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
14 Sep 2020, 07:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
VeritasKarishma
Hi VeritasKarishma AndrewN
I rejected option A, since it was not given that the neighbourhood mall had space issue. There is no such link given.
In fact, it supports Kayla's objection. Y- Because shoppers know that they have to pay there, and then dislike hunting spaces, so they will go to the neighbourhood mall and shop. While option B reduces the effect of payment - if you leave early then you don't pay. Hence, at least better than option A which does not give any link.
Can you plz. let me know where i am going wrong in my thought process.
14 Sep 2020, 18:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
shanks2020
Hello, shanks2020. Others have offered their input above, but I thought I would add my two cents to the mix. You have to be careful to read the question carefully and then look to follow the linear logic of the passage, particularly on tougher CR questions, in which a few distraction answers might sound plausible. Look at the exact question once more:
Quote:
We are looking for a rebuttal, yes, but you cannot lose sight of the fact that this rebuttal needs to come from a proponent of the city's plan. What is that plan? Well, that keyword shows up, conveniently, right in sentence two. The city plans to add parking meters with time limits that ensure that parking spaces are generally available. A proponent of this plan would thus need to justify charging people to park. Moreover, look at the argument or objection that Kayla offers. The premise to her assertion that the plan will backfire is that shoppers dislike paying at parking meters, nothing more. If we had any doubts about what the rebuttal needs to address, that should all but erase them.
Choice (A) justifies the charge. Not just some, but most shoppers would rather pay to park than drive around, looking for a place to park. This is just what we need in the rebuttal, from the point of view of our proponent.
Choice (B) offers an alternative to the plan. It may sound reasonable, but the plan does not consist of ensuring that parking is available without a fee. We can conclude that this is not the kind of rebuttal we are seeking.
Choice (C) does not address the plan at all and should be an easy elimination.
Choice (D) does not address the available parking at the lot, not to mention that, once again, no proponent of the plan would offer such a statement in support of the city's proposal. Are we to understand that just because people will pay to park in one place, they will automatically accept paying to park in another? That is a tenuous connection at best.
Choice (E) does not address the plan either, shifting the focus instead to these nearby malls that may or may not have reasonable parking accommodations. And of course, we have no compelling reason why people would simply accept paying for parking at the meter. Kayla argued that shoppers' dislike of paid parking would derail the plan. That argument could still hold here.
I hope that helps. I had a lot of fun with this one. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.
- Andrew
18 Sep 2020, 00:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
shanks2020
shanks2020
option (B) is irrelevant. We need to judge the merits of the plan proposed. A new plan, whether better than current plan proposed or worse is absolutely irrelevant to our argument.
The question stem clearly asks for: ... most logically effective rebuttal a proponent of the city's plan could make...
We need a rebuttal from a proponent of the plan proposed. It must give us some merit of the plan proposed only.
Note in my explanation I am not assuming that neighbourhood malls have scarce parking too. The point is that as per option (A), since hunting for parking is worse than paying at meters, the plan will likely IMPROVE current situation. It may not make the situation ideal but will improve.
Currently, people hate hunting for parking space so no one comes here to shop. What they do, we do not know.
With paid meters, they will feel better (as per (A)) so some may start coming here. Some may still go to neighbourhood malls, we don't know.
Again, the point is that a proponent of the plan needs to give why the parking meters will make the situation BETTER than before. That is all.
14 Dec 2020, 22:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi AndrewN , VeritasKarishma I need a little guidance from you on this question. Though I selected option A, I still want to confirm whether I eliminated the other 4 options based on the correct understanding -
A. Most shoppers dislike hunting for scarce street parking spaces much more than they dislike paying for metered parking spaces.
- This suggests that the conditions of the plan are more preferable to shoppers than the present scarcity of parking spaces. So the plan should work
B. The city could post signs with street parking time limits to ensure that parking spaces become available without forcing shoppers to pay at meters.
- This isn't what the plan suggests, but is a different plan altogether, so this is irrelevant.
C. Currently, most shoppers in the neighborhood drive only occasionally to shop at malls in other neighborhoods.
- This is again irrelevant since it does not tell us what the effect of the plan would be on those shoppers.
D. The neighborhood already contains a parking lot where shoppers must pay to park.
- This tells us that there is a separate paid parking present elsewhere, but this cannot be a rebuttal to Kayla's comment. The problem is that there is scarce parking in the neighborhood. I'm not sure whether this strengthens Kayla's comment - maybe in spite of the paid parking, people choose not to park there but still hunt for open parking spaces so they may not choose the new paid parking either or it weakens Kayla's comment - if one paid parking is inadequate to address the scarcity of parking, a second paid parking should help . In either case, I think this is not a proper rebuttal of Kayla's comment. Please help whether this thought is correct.
E. The nearby malls with free parking have no parking time limits to help ensure that parking spaces in their lots become available.
- This does not serve as a rebuttal of Kayla's comment since it exemplifies the condition of nearby malls which do not have parking time limits. However, we don't know about parking scarcity there. It could be worse than this neighborhood, or could be better with plenty of parking spaces available. Since we don't know how the current parking conditions are in other malls, we cannot use this as a rebuttal to Kayla's comment. Please help on this too.
A. Most shoppers dislike hunting for scarce street parking spaces much more than they dislike paying for metered parking spaces.
- This suggests that the conditions of the plan are more preferable to shoppers than the present scarcity of parking spaces. So the plan should work
B. The city could post signs with street parking time limits to ensure that parking spaces become available without forcing shoppers to pay at meters.
- This isn't what the plan suggests, but is a different plan altogether, so this is irrelevant.
C. Currently, most shoppers in the neighborhood drive only occasionally to shop at malls in other neighborhoods.
- This is again irrelevant since it does not tell us what the effect of the plan would be on those shoppers.
D. The neighborhood already contains a parking lot where shoppers must pay to park.
- This tells us that there is a separate paid parking present elsewhere, but this cannot be a rebuttal to Kayla's comment. The problem is that there is scarce parking in the neighborhood. I'm not sure whether this strengthens Kayla's comment - maybe in spite of the paid parking, people choose not to park there but still hunt for open parking spaces so they may not choose the new paid parking either or it weakens Kayla's comment - if one paid parking is inadequate to address the scarcity of parking, a second paid parking should help . In either case, I think this is not a proper rebuttal of Kayla's comment. Please help whether this thought is correct.
E. The nearby malls with free parking have no parking time limits to help ensure that parking spaces in their lots become available.
- This does not serve as a rebuttal of Kayla's comment since it exemplifies the condition of nearby malls which do not have parking time limits. However, we don't know about parking scarcity there. It could be worse than this neighborhood, or could be better with plenty of parking spaces available. Since we don't know how the current parking conditions are in other malls, we cannot use this as a rebuttal to Kayla's comment. Please help on this too.
