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

It is currently 18 Sep 2018, 20:23

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

Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 91
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 May 2015, 22:02
Its clearly C.

In the year since the signs have been erected, though, riders have had their pockets picked at Central Station at a per-capita rate nearly doubled. it can only happen when the number of pockets per person is increased or the people with higher number of pockets join existing subway riders.

option C conveys a reason for the increase in the number of pockets/person vulnerable to theft.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 32
Schools: NUS '20
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2015, 05:58
Hello,

With E as well, we can make a single assumption that if the station is too crowded, people were not able to see the hoardings/because everyone was rushing nobody cared for the hoardings - This is also in kind of line with what we assume for B.

Thank you



IanStewart wrote:
Gottesschaf wrote:
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets picked at Central Station had risen to an all-time high, the transit authority erected signs in Central Station telling riders to beware of pickpockets. In the year since the signs have been erected, though, riders have had their pockets picked at Central Station at a per-capita rate nearly double that before the signs were erected.

Which of the following, if true, helps to explain the discrepancy pointed out in the passage?

A.) Since Central Station’s major renovation, during which the signs were erected, Central Station has become much more attractive to tourists from out of town.

B.) Rising gas prices and a surging downtown job market have caused the daily number of riders at Central Station nearly to double within the past year.

C.) Riders walking past the new signs tend to rummage through their pockets or feel through their clothes to verify the presence of their possessions.

D.) The number of individuals convicted of petty theft or grand theft for picking pockets at Central Station has decreased within the past year.

E.) Most of the pickpockets’ victims were riding the subway during peak travel hours, when Central Station is especially crowded.


I don't think this is a good question at all; I can justify almost all of the answer choices by making appropriate assumptions, yet can justify none of them without making assumptions.

Something must have changed since the signs were erected for the pickpocketing rate to have changed, so we're looking for an answer which describes a potentially relevant change. If "Central Station has become much more attractive to tourists from out of town" (where else would tourists be from?) then the population of potential victims has changed; it's certainly reasonable to think that the pickpocketing rate might therefore change. Answer A seems like a fine answer to me. This has nothing to do with 'common stereotypes' and all to do with population bias; if you do an experiment on one population, you can reasonably expect different results if you do the same experiment on a different population. I'd add that you also can't use the criterion "be suspicious of common stereotypes" to rule out answer choices on the real GMAT, since the real GMAT will never include even the vaguest allusion to any kind of stereotype.

Answer B also describes a change since the signs were posted. It's certainly not far-fetched to think that pickpockets can operate more easily in a crowded environment, so B seems like a justifiable answer.

Answer C suggests that the signs are actually working; passengers are more vigilant about their possessions because of the warnings. The justification for answer C in the OE is, to be generous, tenuous, and is based on just as many assumptions as would be a justification for the other plausible answers.

I'm not sure why no one has considered D here. If fewer pickpockets are being prosecuted/convicted, then it's reasonable to think there will be fewer pickpockets in jail and more pickpockets in Central Station, and further there will be less of a deterrent to pickpocketing if there is less reason to fear conviction. It seems like a possible explanation for the increase in pickpocketing incidents.

E is the only answer that I think can be discarded out of hand, since it doesn't describe anything that has necessarily changed since the introduction of the signs.

I suppose the OE rules out B and D because they don't relate the posting of the signs to the increase in pickpocketing incidents, but it's not clear from the language of the question that we need to do that; any alternate explanation is enough to explain the 'discrepancy', whether that explanation relates to the signs or not.
Retired Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 554
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Premium Member
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2017, 22:05
I agree with the views posted here. My reason to chose A over C was that we want to justify something post the signs were posted.

Phrase from the stem --> Last year it increased to an all time high but year since signs were posted, it even doubled.

C is true for entire last year but we want something which gives us clue post signs were posted. Only A talks about increase in population post signs were posted.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 151
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Reviews Badge
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Apr 2017, 02:25
I always bear in my mind that Resolve the Paradox questions are all about explain why A (warning sign) but still B (increasing pickpocket rate). A (warning sign) must be involved and take a part in right answer. That's why I did choose right answer (C) quite quickly.

This is my thoughts when I come across answer choices (A) and (B):
I think both are very tempting. Yes they may all explain why B (increasing pickpocket rate) happens.. but LOOK. Do they mention A (warning sign)? No! Can you see that choices (A) and (B) can still explain for "increasing pickpocket rate" even when "warning sign" does not exist? Then this is not what we need in Resolve the Paradox type of questions!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Status: To infinity and beyond
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 262
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.31
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2017, 03:28
arbinose wrote:
One can assume that tourist can be easy target for pick pocketing, yet it is difficult to find a correlation as even tourist can read the beware board and become cautious about their possessions, so A can be easily rule out, C seems like the only somewhat logical explanation for the given discrepancy.


I agree. One more thing, when the rider checks for his possessions it becomes easier for the thief to find the valuables !
_________________

Please give kudos if you like my post.Thanks

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 19
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2018, 21:27
I feel C is by far worst answer. Before sign boards were used, people might have forgotten about their belongings. Now Sign boards are present, those people who sees sign boards are aware and that is why people keep checking of their belongings all the way and no way yo can rob things from the people who are aware.

The best option for me is E, although this might not explain increase in the number, but says that subway is so crowded and that we can assume people not able to watch sign boards.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 297
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2018, 06:42
C.

Conclusion is: "Since" the new signs have been erected, the riders have had their pockets picked at nearly double the rate than before. We have to look for the change that the signs brought because of which the rate increased by two times.

(A) Since Central Station’s major renovation, during which the signs were erected, Central Station has become much more attractive to tourists from out of town. Does not give any information on how becoming more attractive to tourists=double the rate. Incorrect.

(B) Rising gas prices and a surging downtown job market have caused the daily number of riders at Central Station nearly to double within the past year. Overcrowding may be a possible reason for the pickpocketers to find easy targets. But then, what is the significance of the signs that were erected? Hold but check other options with some connection between signs and rate increase.

(C) Riders walking past the new signs tend to rummage through their pockets or feel through their clothes to verify the presence of their possessions. So the signs made it easier for the pickpocketers to do their jobs. Hold.

(D) The number of individuals convicted of petty theft or grand theft for picking pockets at Central Station has decreased within the past year. Does not directly relate with our conclusion of signs erected=rate increase. Incorrect.

(E) Most of the pickpockets’ victims were riding the subway during peak travel hours, when Central Station is especially crowded. Possible contender. But again, does not relate "signs" with the conclusion. The conclusion clearly states "since the signs were erected. Hence, something must have changed after the signs were erected that made it easier for the pickpocketers and doubled the rate of incidences. Incorrect.

Therefore, only C clarifies the situation.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 219
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2018, 12:36
GMATNinja , broall

Didn't understand why C is the correct answer
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3676
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Mar 2018, 00:42
prateek176 wrote:
GMATNinja , broall

Didn't understand why C is the correct answer


Hey prateek176 ,

C is correct for the right reasons.

Adding those signs actually helped pickpocketers. You may ask how?

Consider I am passing through that sign, the moment I checked that sign, I tried to verify whether my wallet is at the right place.

Now, some thief was looking at my actions and got to know where are my valuable stuffs. Hence, it becomes easy for the thief to pickpocket it once I am going away from those signs.

Hence, option C is clearly providing the negative impact of those signs and helps resolving the paradox.

Does that make sense?
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Re: Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets &nbs [#permalink] 07 Mar 2018, 00:42

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Last year, after the number of subway riders who had had their pockets

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.