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.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
29 Jun 2023, 08:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATking94
Notice what the conclusion is.
Conclusion: if we are to spur economic growth in our city, we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.
So, the conclusion is about what's NECESSARY, not what's SUFFICIENT.
The author isn't saying that there are no other issues or that building the parking ramp will be sufficient to spur economic growth. Rather, the author is saying that one thing they need for economic growth is the parking ramp, and that conclusion does not mean that other issues, such as those you mentioned, won't have to be addressed as well.
15 Aug 2023, 21:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
After reading through every explanation in this thread, I am still confused between B, C, and E.
Let's start with C and why I am having a tough time accepting this is the OA...
Consider this scenario, the downtown stores sell only Russian-manufactured goods. The shoppers, though plentiful, want to avoid such products. In fact, let's say everyone in the world wants to avoid such products. In such a scenario, the number of shoppers isn't really the problem, is it? So, increasing the number of shoppers isn't a MUST. Thus the best weaken arguments should attack that premise in the Mayor's argument.
And this is EXACTLY what B does.
Another flaw in option C: option C assumes that the mayor wants to construct the parking ramp only to increase the number of shoppers. That is an ASSUMPTION again. Nowhere does he mention that explicitly. He could have meant, constructing the parking lot will create other secondary requirements (such as raw materials for construction, etc) that the downtown businesses could satisfy, thereby making more money. What I don't get is how are we drawing the line between "Let's make a parking lot" and "we need to have more shoppers".
And even if increasing the number of shoppers was the goal by creating an additional nearby parking lot, option E satisfies that requirement without the need for constructing the parking ramp at all.
==========================================================
Another way of looking at this whole thing...
Mayor's prescription has 3 parts:
The financial livelihood of our downtown businesses is in jeopardy. There are few available parking spaces close to the downtown shopping area (option B asks how do you know these 2 are connected strongly)
we must build a large parking ramp (refuted by option E)
no more than two blocks from downtown ("not really" refuted by option C, but let's say it is)
Why are we giving more importance to option C, when clearly B and E also address other parts of the mayor's claims (and poke holes in them)
GMATNinja really need you to weigh in on this one.
Let's start with C and why I am having a tough time accepting this is the OA...
Quote:
Ok, this tells me that the parking lot need not be within 2 blocks to increase the number of shoppers. But, why are we ASSUMING that the number of shoppers was the problem in the first place? Nowhere does it say that there was a lack of shoppers. Not sure, the mayor may have implied that. But we can't assume things not given in the question stem (or answer choices), can we? Lack of parking spaces doesn't equate to lack of shoppers.
Consider this scenario, the downtown stores sell only Russian-manufactured goods. The shoppers, though plentiful, want to avoid such products. In fact, let's say everyone in the world wants to avoid such products. In such a scenario, the number of shoppers isn't really the problem, is it? So, increasing the number of shoppers isn't a MUST. Thus the best weaken arguments should attack that premise in the Mayor's argument.
And this is EXACTLY what B does.
Another flaw in option C: option C assumes that the mayor wants to construct the parking ramp only to increase the number of shoppers. That is an ASSUMPTION again. Nowhere does he mention that explicitly. He could have meant, constructing the parking lot will create other secondary requirements (such as raw materials for construction, etc) that the downtown businesses could satisfy, thereby making more money. What I don't get is how are we drawing the line between "Let's make a parking lot" and "we need to have more shoppers".
And even if increasing the number of shoppers was the goal by creating an additional nearby parking lot, option E satisfies that requirement without the need for constructing the parking ramp at all.
==========================================================
Another way of looking at this whole thing...
Mayor's prescription has 3 parts:
The financial livelihood of our downtown businesses is in jeopardy. There are few available parking spaces close to the downtown shopping area (option B asks how do you know these 2 are connected strongly)
we must build a large parking ramp (refuted by option E)
no more than two blocks from downtown ("not really" refuted by option C, but let's say it is)
Why are we giving more importance to option C, when clearly B and E also address other parts of the mayor's claims (and poke holes in them)
GMATNinja really need you to weigh in on this one.
03 Jan 2024, 13:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Saupayan
The mayor wants to "stimulate economic growth in the city." He/she identifies a barrier to achieving that goal: "there are few available parking spaces close to the downtown shopping area."
In order to combat this problem, he/she comes up with a plan: "we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown."
We're looking to weaken the mayor's reasoning. Starting with (B):
Quote:
(B) tells us that there are issues in addition to the parking problem. But does that weaken the mayor's reasoning? Not really, because he/she doesn't say that the parking thing is the ONLY problem facing the downtown businesses. He/she doesn't even say it's the BIGGEST problem. Instead, the mayor just says that we "must" put in more parking. This leaves the door open for tons of additional problems that also need to be addressed.
Because the mayor doesn't argue that the parking ramp would solve the only problem or the biggest problem, (B) doesn't weaken the argument.
Eliminate (B).
Take a look at (E):
Quote:
The issue here is the word "some." What exactly does that mean? Well, maybe a handful of spots could be added without building the ramp -- but the mayor argues that a large ramp is needed. Just because "some" parking can be added doesn't mean that this large structure isn't needed. That's why (E) doesn't weaken the mayor's reasoning.
Eliminate (E).
And here's (C):
Quote:
In order to overcome the parking issue, the mayor concludes that the city must build a parking ramp within two blocks of the downtown area. (C) gives us information to believe that the mayor is wrong -- it is sufficient to build a ramp as much as four blocks away. So, (C) blows a big hole in the mayor's argument.
To address your misgivings: to support his/her plan, the mayor says that parking is an issue. We can indeed infer, using common knowledge, that the reason that a lack of parking would hurt downtown businesses is that it would prevent shoppers from coming downtown.
Your "Russian-made" scenario doesn't account for the fact that parking is a limiting factor. Sure, we could get a totally different answer choice that shows us that parking actually isn't hurting downtown businesses -- that would puncture the inference we made above, which is that lack of parking leads to a lack of shoppers. But we don't get an answer choice like that, and we on'y have to worry about the answer choices that we're given.
(C) weakens the argument that there must be a ramp within two blocks, so (C) is the correct answer.
I hope that helps!
