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.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1408:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions..- Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
12 May 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
33% (02:09) correct
67%
(02:53)
wrong
based on 30
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Management consultant: It is broadly true that pharmaceutical firms that employ sales representatives to persuade doctors to prescribe certain medications charge less for their products than do those that do not employ sales representatives. It is also true that each time the restrictions on the use of pharmaceutical sales representatives have been relaxed, the number of firms employing sales representatives has increased, and consequently, medical costs to consumers have declined. However, eliminating the requirement that the sales representatives must provide a detailed report comparing prices of their products with those of competing products would almost certainly increase rather than decrease medical costs. The firms would no longer be incentivized to lower drug costs when they begin employing sales representatives and if no longer required to provide the necessary price comparison report, many firms that now employ sales representatives would increase the medications’ price.
In the management consultant’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is a generalization accepted as true by the management consultant; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
(B) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration supporting that prediction.
(C) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant argues will repeat in the case at issue; the second recognizes a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
(D) The first is evidence offered by the management consultant in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first recognizes a consideration that weighs against the main position that the management consultant defends; the second is that position.
In the management consultant’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is a generalization accepted as true by the management consultant; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
(B) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration supporting that prediction.
(C) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant argues will repeat in the case at issue; the second recognizes a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
(D) The first is evidence offered by the management consultant in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first recognizes a consideration that weighs against the main position that the management consultant defends; the second is that position.
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 14 May 2026
Posts: 128
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 107
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
Products:
Updated on: 13 May 2026, 20:20
Originally posted by ankushsambare on 12 May 2026, 20:37.
Last edited by ankushsambare on 13 May 2026, 20:20, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by ankushsambare on 13 May 2026, 20:20, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Main conclusion:
Removing the reporting requirement will increase medical costs.
First boldface:
General pattern: firms with sales reps charge less.
Second boldface:
If requirement is removed, many firms will raise prices.
Now eliminate options:
(A) First is generalization, second is consequence of that generalization
Wrong because the second boldface is not caused just by the first fact; it depends on removing the requirement, not the general rule alone.
(B) First is a cause-effect pattern; second supports a prediction
Correct. First gives a known relationship (sales reps → lower prices). Second supports the prediction that removing reporting will lead to higher prices.
(C) First pattern will not hold; second supports that prediction
Wrong. The argument does NOT say the first pattern fails; it still assumes it holds.
(D) First is evidence; second is the prediction
Wrong. The second boldface is not the main conclusion of the argument; the main conclusion is about overall medical costs.
(E) First weighs against main position; second is the position
Wrong. The first boldface actually supports the reasoning, not opposes it.
Answer: B
Removing the reporting requirement will increase medical costs.
First boldface:
General pattern: firms with sales reps charge less.
Second boldface:
If requirement is removed, many firms will raise prices.
Now eliminate options:
(A) First is generalization, second is consequence of that generalization
Wrong because the second boldface is not caused just by the first fact; it depends on removing the requirement, not the general rule alone.
(B) First is a cause-effect pattern; second supports a prediction
Correct. First gives a known relationship (sales reps → lower prices). Second supports the prediction that removing reporting will lead to higher prices.
(C) First pattern will not hold; second supports that prediction
Wrong. The argument does NOT say the first pattern fails; it still assumes it holds.
(D) First is evidence; second is the prediction
Wrong. The second boldface is not the main conclusion of the argument; the main conclusion is about overall medical costs.
(E) First weighs against main position; second is the position
Wrong. The first boldface actually supports the reasoning, not opposes it.
Answer: B
12 May 2026, 23:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
BF 1= each time the restrictions on the use of pharmaceutical sales representatives have been relaxed, the number of firms employing sales representatives has increased, and consequently, medical costs to consumers have declined.
BF 2= if no longer required to provide the necessary price comparison report, many firms that now employ sales representatives would increase the medications’ price.
first part= no restriction on use of sales rep - more companies hire sales rep -price goes up.
second part= no requirement of price comparison - price goes up.
conclusion= eliminating the requirementthat the sales representatives must provide a detailed report comparing prices of their products with those of competing products would almost certainly increase rather than decrease medical costs.
reason = firms with more sales people have no reason to lower price when they hire more sales people.
and when not required to provide comparison report, firms with more sales people will increase the price.
general view= more sales people - price will go up
consultant view= more sales people - no comparison report - price will go up
(A) The first is a generalization accepted as true by the management consultant; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
second is not consequence follows from truth of that generalization. reject.
(B) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration supporting that prediction.
yes, consultant is saying that cause and effect will not hold and then he/she gives the reason for why that cause and effect will not work. so keep.
(C) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant argues will repeat in the case at issue; the second recognizes a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
consultant is not saying pattern will repeat at all. he rather says that pattern will break down if we add one step in that chain. reject.
(D) The first is evidence offered by the management consultant in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
first is not evidence in support of certain prediction at all. first is rather cause and effect.
(E) The first recognizes a consideration that weighs against the main position that the management consultant defends; the second is that position.
first is not against the main position the management consultants defends. reject.
BF 2= if no longer required to provide the necessary price comparison report, many firms that now employ sales representatives would increase the medications’ price.
first part= no restriction on use of sales rep - more companies hire sales rep -price goes up.
second part= no requirement of price comparison - price goes up.
conclusion= eliminating the requirement
reason = firms with more sales people have no reason to lower price when they hire more sales people.
and when not required to provide comparison report, firms with more sales people will increase the price.
general view= more sales people - price will go up
consultant view= more sales people - no comparison report - price will go up
(A) The first is a generalization accepted as true by the management consultant; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
second is not consequence follows from truth of that generalization. reject.
(B) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration supporting that prediction.
yes, consultant is saying that cause and effect will not hold and then he/she gives the reason for why that cause and effect will not work. so keep.
(C) The first is a cause-effect pattern that the management consultant argues will repeat in the case at issue; the second recognizes a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
consultant is not saying pattern will repeat at all. he rather says that pattern will break down if we add one step in that chain. reject.
(D) The first is evidence offered by the management consultant in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
first is not evidence in support of certain prediction at all. first is rather cause and effect.
(E) The first recognizes a consideration that weighs against the main position that the management consultant defends; the second is that position.
first is not against the main position the management consultants defends. reject.
ExpertsGlobal5
