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

It is currently 18 Nov 2018, 11:22

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     10:00 AM PST

    The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
  • The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     06:00 PM EST

     07:00 PM EST

    What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

Many high schools send students to special courses to

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 434
Location: Kolkata
Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2010, 10:17
2
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

65% (01:56) correct 35% (01:58) wrong based on 653 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the MOST effective challenge to this argument.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 365
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2010, 18:43
suyashjhawar wrote:
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the MOST effective challenge to this argument.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.


I am confused with the OA given here.

Option A - Seems to corroborate with the argument.
Option B - Corroborates with the argument.
Option C - Irrelevant.
Option D - Irrelevant.

Option E - Although it is not very convincing, it is the best bet of all the options.

Any other thoughts???
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 152
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2010, 19:17
1
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 365
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2010, 19:49
siyer wrote:
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.


I am still confused. :? Help me understand this clearly.

The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do [highlight]since 1995[/highlight]. The highlighted text - [highlight]since 1995[/highlight] means on or after 1995.

Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 152
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2010, 22:58
Quote:
The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The highlighted text - since 1995 means on or after 1995.

Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???


The students who do not attend the special courses are in the schools who have prior knowledge of the exams. So the schools help them with their exams whereas students from the other schools do not have that advantage and hence attend special courses.

So the special courses would be a waste of time only for the students of those schools who had participated in the exams prior to 1995. For the students of other schools, it would not be a waste of time.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 294
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2010, 05:55
ezhilkumarank wrote:
siyer wrote:
We need to find a fact which would weaken the language teachers argument that the courses are a waste of time and money.

b) Schools that have sent students to the courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
c) The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
d) The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
These do not weaken the argument.

e) Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by twenty percent.
This does not explicitly mention that the increase in passing was due to the special courses.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
Since the schools which do not send students to special courses were the only ones who participated in the exams prior to 1995 they had better knowledge of the exams and hence had a higher average score. This weakens the argument. So A is the correct answer.


I am still confused. :? Help me understand this clearly.

The argument notes that a) language courses are a waste of time. b) high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do [highlight]since 1995[/highlight]. The highlighted text - [highlight]since 1995[/highlight] means on or after 1995.

Now option A talks of prior to 1995 and also talks of students not attending the courses but still having better knowledge of the exams thus supporting the argument that the courses are a waste of time. Isn't option A just supporting whatever is presented in the stimulus???


A for me too.

This answer weakens by saying the schools, which did not send students for special courses already has knowledge on the exam to prepare the students well.
_________________

My gmat story
MGMAT1 - 630 Q44V32
MGMAT2 - 650 Q41V38
MGMAT3 - 680 Q44V37
GMATPrep1 - 660 Q49V31
Knewton1 - 550 Q40V27

Intern
Intern
avatar
Affiliations: NCC,SAE,YHIA
Joined: 04 May 2010
Posts: 39
Location: Mumbai , India
WE 1: 3 years international sales & mktg-projects
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2010, 23:55
In this weaken question we have to contest the conclusion that special courses are waste of time and money.

Option that provides information about the benefits of the course is winner.

A ) Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.

Hence the schools who report better scores without sending the students to special courses had benefited from the courses earlier, therefore other schools that are sending the students to the special courses now will benefit from the courses.
_________________

Sun Tzu-Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 141
Re: High School  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2010, 02:13
had to go with A as other options do not weaken the argument at all.
A talks about before 1995 when the schools which do not send the students to the courses are the only one which participated in the exams, but it does not have any reference to post 1995

But the other options are irrelevant. So picked A
AGSM Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 149
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
GMAT ToolKit User
Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2012, 05:12
2
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to this argument?

A. Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
B. Schools that have sent students to courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
C. The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
D. The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
E. Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%.

Please explain your answer.
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Done with formalities.. and back..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 595
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Olin - Wash U - Class of 2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Many high schools..  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2012, 07:18
Vineetk wrote:
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to this argument?

A. Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
B. Schools that have sent students to courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
C. The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
D. The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
E. Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%.

Please explain your answer.

Basically we want an answer choice that weakens the argument. Only option A is the contender. If a school has better knowledge of exam or expertise in the particular area, it doesnt need to send its students to language school and also would be able to better provide the education. Thus the results. However, other schools still need to send students for such courses

Ans A it is.
_________________

Lets Kudos!!! ;-)
Black Friday Debrief

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8550
Location: Pune, India
Re: Many high schools..  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2012, 18:54
2
2
Vineetk wrote:
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to this argument?

A. Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
B. Schools that have sent students to courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
C. The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
D. The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
E. Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%.

Please explain your answer.


Conclusion: Language courses are a waste of time and money.

Weaken the conclusion.

A - Some schools do not send students to language courses. They have better knowledge of the exam since they have been participating for a long time. Some schools send students to language courses. They do not have as much knowledge since they have not been participating for long. Hence language courses for these schools may not be a waste of time and money.

The only confusion could be with E. Notice that E talks about the 'number of students' who passed. The total number of students appearing for the test could have increased which would have increased the number of students who passed even if the passing rates remained the same. Until and unless we have some more numbers, we cannot say that E weakens the conclusion.

For more, check out this strengthen/weaken video: an-architect-s-look-at-critical-reasoning-by-veritas-prep-142434.html#p1143539
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 108
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Many high schools..  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Nov 2013, 05:37
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Vineetk wrote:
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to this argument?

A. Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
B. Schools that have sent students to courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
C. The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
D. The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
E. Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%.

Please explain your answer.


Conclusion: Language courses are a waste of time and money.

Weaken the conclusion.

A - Some schools do not send students to language courses. They have better knowledge of the exam since they have been participating for a long time. Some schools send students to language courses. They do not have as much knowledge since they have not been participating for long. Hence language courses for these schools may not be a waste of time and money.

The only confusion could be with E. Notice that E talks about the 'number of students' who passed. The total number of students appearing for the test could have increased which would have increased the number of students who passed even if the passing rates remained the same. Until and unless we have some more numbers, we cannot say that E weakens the conclusion.

For more, check out this strengthen/weaken video: an-architect-s-look-at-critical-reasoning-by-veritas-prep-142434.html#p1143539


Sorry i am still not clear as to why is E incorrect. Why do you say that it talks about number? It says that number of students increased by 20%. so if usually there were 100 students passing the exam after 1995 after attending the language course the pass % increased to 120. Its still % and not absolute numbers.
_________________

“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.”

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8550
Location: Pune, India
Re: Many high schools..  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Nov 2013, 06:10
2
ankur1901 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Vineetk wrote:
Many high schools send students to special courses to prepare them for language exams. Some language teachers criticize these courses and point out that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995. The language teachers say that the courses are a waste of time and money.

Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to this argument?

A. Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
B. Schools that have sent students to courses since 1995 have experienced a greater drop in their scores than they had prior to 1995.
C. The cost of these courses run by outside teachers has risen dramatically since 1995.
D. The poor design of courses to prepare students for the language exams is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
E. Since 1995, the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%.

Please explain your answer.


Conclusion: Language courses are a waste of time and money.

Weaken the conclusion.

A - Some schools do not send students to language courses. They have better knowledge of the exam since they have been participating for a long time. Some schools send students to language courses. They do not have as much knowledge since they have not been participating for long. Hence language courses for these schools may not be a waste of time and money.

The only confusion could be with E. Notice that E talks about the 'number of students' who passed. The total number of students appearing for the test could have increased which would have increased the number of students who passed even if the passing rates remained the same. Until and unless we have some more numbers, we cannot say that E weakens the conclusion.

For more, check out this strengthen/weaken video: an-architect-s-look-at-critical-reasoning-by-veritas-prep-142434.html#p1143539


Sorry i am still not clear as to why is E incorrect. Why do you say that it talks about number? It says that number of students increased by 20%. so if usually there were 100 students passing the exam after 1995 after attending the language course the pass % increased to 120. Its still % and not absolute numbers.


(E) says that "the number of students who passed the language exams has risen by 20%". The number of students who passed implies nothing about number of students who appeared since we don't know how the passing rates have changed.
Say prior to 1995, 200 students used to appear for the exam and 50% i.e. 100 used to pass. Now say 240 appear and still 50% i.e. 120 pass. The 'number of students who passed' has increased from 100 to 120 (i.e. by 20%) but that doesn't imply that students are performing better now. They are performing the same as before since the pass percentage is the same (in very restricted terms).
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 80
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2013, 07:59
Hi Ankur1901

you right, Well the conclusion is whether the language course is waste of time and money or not.And option A only affects the premise" --that high schools which do not send their students to special courses have reported a higher average score than those which do since 1995--" without affecting the conclusion.

how people who support option B will prove that that the course is waste of time for another school ( in fact for all other schools as the tone of conclusion says). Moreover, the question is about language exam score ( which E clearly indicates) not overall score.Hence E suits better.


Even if , E says that the 20% rise is due to increase in number of students then in itself it infers that more people are joining this course.
thanks
Sid
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2645
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2016, 18:58
picked E, because the argument says MANY. nevertheless, many might be a small portion overall. Thus, the only one that actually works is A. if schools who do not send, know better the exam, the teachers of these school know better how to prepare the students.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 66
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2016, 06:17
I originally thought E, read A again, got lazy and picked E.

Don't get lazy! When you've narrowed it down take the 30 more seconds to really refine your answer!
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1674
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2017, 00:37
E is wrong because we know nothing about the comparison between 2 types of school.
VP
VP
User avatar
P
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1085
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2017, 01:00
Imo A
The argument can be understood by taking sets A and B
A =does not send students to prepare
B=Send students to prepare
Those schools which do not send students to the courses have better knowledge of the exams since they are the only schools which participated in the exams prior to 1995.
If A does not send its students outside to prepare for the exam ,it does not mean that the quality of the program is not good .
Because there are other colleges which might use it for good .
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3388
Premium Member
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2018, 05:25
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Many high schools send students to special courses to &nbs [#permalink] 15 Sep 2018, 05:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Many high schools send students to special courses to

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.