Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 14:35 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 14:35 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. 
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
15 Aug 2024, 02:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
I got it now. Took me a while and several times of coming back to this question. What we should focus on here are the jurors that are knowledgeable of the fact that eye witnesses are less reliable than physical evidence, as the paradox is about those specific jurors. B just provides generic information about "many jurors" in general. Only D talks about jurors who should know better but apparently don't.
This pattern repeats often in filling-the-blank questions like this one Link. Here the regulations are specifically mentioned, hence, our answer choice must be about those regulations as those were not part of the premise and were only mentioned in the conclusion, so that an assumptions is needed that ties the regulations to the perception of gene replacement therapy by the public. A provides the conclusion that ties those 2 together.
Equally, in our question here, D ties the jurors with knowledge with the reason for their action, which solves the paradox. This doesn't have to make sense to everybody else observing the paradox, it should only explain why they act the way that they do.
This pattern repeats often in filling-the-blank questions like this one Link. Here the regulations are specifically mentioned, hence, our answer choice must be about those regulations as those were not part of the premise and were only mentioned in the conclusion, so that an assumptions is needed that ties the regulations to the perception of gene replacement therapy by the public. A provides the conclusion that ties those 2 together.
Equally, in our question here, D ties the jurors with knowledge with the reason for their action, which solves the paradox. This doesn't have to make sense to everybody else observing the paradox, it should only explain why they act the way that they do.
18 Aug 2024, 23:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question appeared in Mock 4. Took me a lot of time to understand. Sharing my thoughts.
Jurors when presented with two options
1) to believe the witness testimony or
2) to believe the physical evidence.
invariably favor the witness testimony. Even though they know that witnesses are almost always biased.
Why is that.
B vs D.
B says many jurors consider expert testimony is biased. This doesn’t explain discrepancy as witness testimony is also biased and expert testimony is also biased. Why would the juror go with either choice.
D says jurors think (incorrectly) that they can understand if a witness is lying. Which gives them a reason to go with witness testimony.
Jurors when presented with two options
1) to believe the witness testimony or
2) to believe the physical evidence.
invariably favor the witness testimony. Even though they know that witnesses are almost always biased.
Why is that.
B vs D.
B says many jurors consider expert testimony is biased. This doesn’t explain discrepancy as witness testimony is also biased and expert testimony is also biased. Why would the juror go with either choice.
D says jurors think (incorrectly) that they can understand if a witness is lying. Which gives them a reason to go with witness testimony.
15 Oct 2024, 03:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
ElijahTimroyalty
Responding to a pm:
Premises:
Most jurors believe eyewitness testimony rather than physical evidence backed by expert scientific testimony.
This tendency survives even for those jurors who understand that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable than is physical evidence backed by expert testimony.
Why? Why do people believe eyewitnesses more even if they know that eyewitnesses are less reliable than evidence+expert witness?
A. Jurors in mock trials usually spend less time deliberating and worrying about reaching the right verdict than do jurors in actual trials.
Irrelevant. How is time related to bias toward eye witnesses is not known. Anyway, this gives us a distinction in actual and mock trials while there is no distinction being made in the two by the argument.
B. Because expert testimony regarding physical evidence presented at trial is almost invariably given by witnesses testifying for one side or the other, many jurors regard such witnesses as biased.
Even if they regard expert witnesses as biased, they know that eye witnesses are even less trustworthy.
We are given that even those jurors who understand that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable than is physical evidence backed by expert testimony prefer eye witness testimony. The question still remains why? Why do they depend on eye witness testimony even when they know that eye witness testimony is even less reliable than expert testimony?
C. The credibility that a particular juror will assign to a particular eyewitness will be profoundly influenced by personal characteristics of the eyewitness including age, gender, occupation, and appearance.
This tells us that jurors differentiate between various eyewitnesses. Doesn't tell us why they depend on eye witnesses.
D. Even jurors who understand that eyewitnesses tend to be less reliable than physical evidence incorrectly believe they are better than the average juror at telling when an eyewitness’s testimony is reliable
Correct. Even when jurors know that eye witnesses are less reliable, they think that they themselves are better than average at reading people. That they will be able to differentiate between truth and lies of an eyewitness. Hence, they believe eye witnesses and depend on their account.
E. The more complex the physical evidence presented at trial is, the less it will influence the jurors in reaching their verdict.
Irrelevant. Distinction is being made between simple physical evidence and complex physical evidence. Our point is even when they know that eye witnesses are even less reliable, why do they still depend on them?
Answer (D)
RobertVericPrep
Joined: 02 Nov 2020
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Location: United States
Schools: Kellogg (A)
11 Jul 2026, 19:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
While most critical reasoning questions are arguments, where your first step is to identify the conclusion, this is an "explain" question. It's not an argument, and there is no conclusion. The passage essentially presents a mystery, and the correct answer resolves that mystery.
The mystery here is a weird contradiction in human behavior. We're told in the first sentence that jurors lean toward the side using eyewitness testimony rather than physical evidence backed by expert science. Nonetheless, we're told in the second sentence that this tendency sticks around even for jurors who explicitly know that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable. If they know better, why do they still do it? That's the mystery, and the correct answer needs to resolve the mystery.
Answer D resolves the whole thing by introducing a piece of human psychology: overconfidence. It states that even though these jurors know eyewitnesses are unreliable in general, they incorrectly believe that they themselves are better than the average person at spotting when an eyewitness is actually telling the truth.
This makes the paradox click. They aren't throwing out their knowledge that eyewitnesses are usually unreliable; they just think they have a "special knack" for filtering out the bad ones. That's why the bias survives.
The correct answer is D.
A lot of people get tripped up by answer B, which says jurors view expert witnesses as biased because they are hired by one side. It feels like a solid explanation at first glance. If the expert is biased, of course you trust the eyewitness instead, right? But the problem is that B contradicts the premise we already have to accept as true. The passage tells us these jurors already understand that eyewitness testimony is less reliable than expert-backed evidence. Even if they think an expert has a bias, they still hold the baseline belief that the physical evidence is more dependable. Answer B doesn't explain why they push that belief aside when it's time to vote.
The mystery here is a weird contradiction in human behavior. We're told in the first sentence that jurors lean toward the side using eyewitness testimony rather than physical evidence backed by expert science. Nonetheless, we're told in the second sentence that this tendency sticks around even for jurors who explicitly know that eyewitness testimony is generally less reliable. If they know better, why do they still do it? That's the mystery, and the correct answer needs to resolve the mystery.
Answer D resolves the whole thing by introducing a piece of human psychology: overconfidence. It states that even though these jurors know eyewitnesses are unreliable in general, they incorrectly believe that they themselves are better than the average person at spotting when an eyewitness is actually telling the truth.
This makes the paradox click. They aren't throwing out their knowledge that eyewitnesses are usually unreliable; they just think they have a "special knack" for filtering out the bad ones. That's why the bias survives.
The correct answer is D.
A lot of people get tripped up by answer B, which says jurors view expert witnesses as biased because they are hired by one side. It feels like a solid explanation at first glance. If the expert is biased, of course you trust the eyewitness instead, right? But the problem is that B contradicts the premise we already have to accept as true. The passage tells us these jurors already understand that eyewitness testimony is less reliable than expert-backed evidence. Even if they think an expert has a bias, they still hold the baseline belief that the physical evidence is more dependable. Answer B doesn't explain why they push that belief aside when it's time to vote.
