Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
68% (02:04) correct
32%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 1957
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.
D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.
In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.
C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.
D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.
10 Oct 2012, 06:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the
community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering
fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community
picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the
amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and
unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether. In the argument, the two portions in boldface
play which of the following roles?
• The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second
raises evidence against this prediction.
• The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this
fact.
• The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a
line of reasoning to support this prediction.
A)Incorrect The first is a statement of fact but it doesnt support the second sentence as the second assumes that the first will cease to hold.
B)Incorrect: The author doesn't predict that continual increases in fine will continue to reduce litter - quite the opposite.
C)Incorrect: THe first is a fact but the second isn't a consequence of the fact. If the face is that fines up leads to litter down, the the consequence is fines further up, litter further down.
D)Incorrect: (tough to remove) It sounds completely right until I saw the word position, the author hasn't actually got a position (a conclusion) he just says that park users may begin to see the fine as unenforceable.
E) Correct. The first sentence is correct as the author clearly talks about the break down of the fine/litter relationship and the second is definitely a reason why the relationship will break down
community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering
fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community
picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the
amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and
unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether. In the argument, the two portions in boldface
play which of the following roles?
• The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second
raises evidence against this prediction.
• The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this
fact.
• The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a
line of reasoning to support this prediction.
A)Incorrect The first is a statement of fact but it doesnt support the second sentence as the second assumes that the first will cease to hold.
B)Incorrect: The author doesn't predict that continual increases in fine will continue to reduce litter - quite the opposite.
C)Incorrect: THe first is a fact but the second isn't a consequence of the fact. If the face is that fines up leads to litter down, the the consequence is fines further up, litter further down.
D)Incorrect: (tough to remove) It sounds completely right until I saw the word position, the author hasn't actually got a position (a conclusion) he just says that park users may begin to see the fine as unenforceable.
E) Correct. The first sentence is correct as the author clearly talks about the break down of the fine/litter relationship and the second is definitely a reason why the relationship will break down
17 Apr 2021, 06:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
hogann
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
The author concludes that raising the fine to $1,000 would have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. When determining the function of the two bold statements, we must consider how they relate to this conclusion: the first bold portion weighs against the conclusion, while the second bold portion supports the conclusion. The correct answer will represent these relationships.
(A) The “prediction” mentioned here refers to the author’s conclusion (raising the fine to $1,000 would increase the amount of litter). This answer choice incorrectly states that the first bold portion supports this conclusion. Also, this choice incorrectly states that the second bold statement is the prediction, or conclusion.
(B) This choice incorrectly states that the author’s prediction, or conclusion, is consistent with the first bold statement when in fact it predicts the exact opposite outcome. Further, this answer states that the second bold portion weighs against the author’s conclusion when in fact it supports the conclusion.
(C) The second bold portion does not come as a consequence of the first. In fact, the two bold portions are in complete contrast to one another.
(D) The second bold portion is not the main position that the author defends. The main position is that raising the fine to $1,000 would increase the amount of litter in the picnic area.
(E) CORRECT. This answer choice correctly identifies the first bold portion as a statement of causation that does not support the author’s claim, and the second bold statement as a line of logic that does support this claim.
