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.
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 1609:30 AM EDT
-11:30 AM EDT
Is INSEAD your dream b-school and you're looking for solid prep and application strategies to get there? Check out Barkavi’s end-to-end journey to know how she did! Get insights into the INSEAD admissions process, know what Adcoms look at, and more!
Jul 1611:00 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.
Jul 1911:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
02 Nov 2020, 04:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 1, Page 502
Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.
The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
Explanation
Question Type: Inference
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Generalized memory helps animals better function in similar situations
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that has to be true with 100% certainty.
Analysis: This is a straightforward Inference question. Given the information in the prompt that animals have evolved to draw on past experience to function better in similar situations, AND that the memories need not be perfect, just general, we need to find an option that follows with 100% certainty. In Inference questions, GMAC will be guaranteed to deliver 2 types of incorrect options:
This question has both. Let's see which option best achieves our objectives:
A) From the facts given do we KNOW that at least some animals have the ability to perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences? No. From what's given, maybe, but maybe (and probably not). If the option is not 100% supported, DUMP IT! This is an example of an option that's reasonable, but unsupported.
B) This option is doomed right from the beginning. Since we don't know that any animal is even capable of recalling EVERY detail of ALL their past experiences, this option is discussing circumstances that are totally unsupported by the prompt. This option draws from circumstances that are too extreme and then makes a reasonable claim (perfect retention might help). The thing is, how do we know 100%? We don't. Maybe perfect retention is a curse. Maybe any animal that would be capable of perfect retention would be overloaded in a similar circumstance. This option is not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
C) Reasonable but not 100% supported. Do we know that a successful generalization from past experiences requires clear memories of MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences? No. Maybe a successful generalization requires 20% recollection for all we know. DUMP IT! Note, that "MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences" ventures into extreme territory. We don't actually know that such a high level of retention is even possible.
D) This option goes to extreme on the negative side. So maybe an animal is capable of perfect recollection, but can we infer that this animal would then be incapable of generalizing from that information because of it? No. Too extreme. Maybe the animal could do a wonderful job of generalizing from perfect retention. Not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
E) Yes! Notice the delicate and measured wording of this option. It's worded in such a way as to be GUARANTEED from the facts in the prompt. Yes, animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if the draw on generalizations from past experiences or similar situations. In fact, this option is so agreeable with the information in the prompt, it's probably playing it too conservative. We know this option with 100% certainty, therefore it's the correct option.
Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.
The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
Explanation
Question Type: Inference
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Generalized memory helps animals better function in similar situations
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that has to be true with 100% certainty.
Analysis: This is a straightforward Inference question. Given the information in the prompt that animals have evolved to draw on past experience to function better in similar situations, AND that the memories need not be perfect, just general, we need to find an option that follows with 100% certainty. In Inference questions, GMAC will be guaranteed to deliver 2 types of incorrect options:
- 1) Those that are too extreme to be supported from the facts given
2) Options that seem reasonable, but are not supported from the facts given
This question has both. Let's see which option best achieves our objectives:
A) From the facts given do we KNOW that at least some animals have the ability to perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences? No. From what's given, maybe, but maybe (and probably not). If the option is not 100% supported, DUMP IT! This is an example of an option that's reasonable, but unsupported.
B) This option is doomed right from the beginning. Since we don't know that any animal is even capable of recalling EVERY detail of ALL their past experiences, this option is discussing circumstances that are totally unsupported by the prompt. This option draws from circumstances that are too extreme and then makes a reasonable claim (perfect retention might help). The thing is, how do we know 100%? We don't. Maybe perfect retention is a curse. Maybe any animal that would be capable of perfect retention would be overloaded in a similar circumstance. This option is not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
C) Reasonable but not 100% supported. Do we know that a successful generalization from past experiences requires clear memories of MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences? No. Maybe a successful generalization requires 20% recollection for all we know. DUMP IT! Note, that "MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences" ventures into extreme territory. We don't actually know that such a high level of retention is even possible.
D) This option goes to extreme on the negative side. So maybe an animal is capable of perfect recollection, but can we infer that this animal would then be incapable of generalizing from that information because of it? No. Too extreme. Maybe the animal could do a wonderful job of generalizing from perfect retention. Not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
E) Yes! Notice the delicate and measured wording of this option. It's worded in such a way as to be GUARANTEED from the facts in the prompt. Yes, animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if the draw on generalizations from past experiences or similar situations. In fact, this option is so agreeable with the information in the prompt, it's probably playing it too conservative. We know this option with 100% certainty, therefore it's the correct option.
Thanks! But in my opinion, the answer should be (D), which it isn't. My reasoning is that in the passage, the word 'instead' is used to show contrast between 'generalising' and 'perfectly recalling every detail'. From this, we can infer that they are mutually exclusive or opposed. Answer (E) equates 'memory functioning' well with 'reacting appropriately'. Reasonable yes, but not inferred.
Would really appreciate your thoughts?
Cheers
25 Mar 2021, 07:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
adkor95
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 1, Page 502
Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.
The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
Explanation
Question Type: Inference
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Generalized memory helps animals better function in similar situations
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that has to be true with 100% certainty.
Analysis: This is a straightforward Inference question. Given the information in the prompt that animals have evolved to draw on past experience to function better in similar situations, AND that the memories need not be perfect, just general, we need to find an option that follows with 100% certainty. In Inference questions, GMAC will be guaranteed to deliver 2 types of incorrect options:
This question has both. Let's see which option best achieves our objectives:
A) From the facts given do we KNOW that at least some animals have the ability to perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences? No. From what's given, maybe, but maybe (and probably not). If the option is not 100% supported, DUMP IT! This is an example of an option that's reasonable, but unsupported.
B) This option is doomed right from the beginning. Since we don't know that any animal is even capable of recalling EVERY detail of ALL their past experiences, this option is discussing circumstances that are totally unsupported by the prompt. This option draws from circumstances that are too extreme and then makes a reasonable claim (perfect retention might help). The thing is, how do we know 100%? We don't. Maybe perfect retention is a curse. Maybe any animal that would be capable of perfect retention would be overloaded in a similar circumstance. This option is not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
C) Reasonable but not 100% supported. Do we know that a successful generalization from past experiences requires clear memories of MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences? No. Maybe a successful generalization requires 20% recollection for all we know. DUMP IT! Note, that "MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences" ventures into extreme territory. We don't actually know that such a high level of retention is even possible.
D) This option goes to extreme on the negative side. So maybe an animal is capable of perfect recollection, but can we infer that this animal would then be incapable of generalizing from that information because of it? No. Too extreme. Maybe the animal could do a wonderful job of generalizing from perfect retention. Not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
E) Yes! Notice the delicate and measured wording of this option. It's worded in such a way as to be GUARANTEED from the facts in the prompt. Yes, animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if the draw on generalizations from past experiences or similar situations. In fact, this option is so agreeable with the information in the prompt, it's probably playing it too conservative. We know this option with 100% certainty, therefore it's the correct option.
Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.
The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
Explanation
Question Type: Inference
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Generalized memory helps animals better function in similar situations
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that has to be true with 100% certainty.
Analysis: This is a straightforward Inference question. Given the information in the prompt that animals have evolved to draw on past experience to function better in similar situations, AND that the memories need not be perfect, just general, we need to find an option that follows with 100% certainty. In Inference questions, GMAC will be guaranteed to deliver 2 types of incorrect options:
- 1) Those that are too extreme to be supported from the facts given
2) Options that seem reasonable, but are not supported from the facts given
This question has both. Let's see which option best achieves our objectives:
A) From the facts given do we KNOW that at least some animals have the ability to perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences? No. From what's given, maybe, but maybe (and probably not). If the option is not 100% supported, DUMP IT! This is an example of an option that's reasonable, but unsupported.
B) This option is doomed right from the beginning. Since we don't know that any animal is even capable of recalling EVERY detail of ALL their past experiences, this option is discussing circumstances that are totally unsupported by the prompt. This option draws from circumstances that are too extreme and then makes a reasonable claim (perfect retention might help). The thing is, how do we know 100%? We don't. Maybe perfect retention is a curse. Maybe any animal that would be capable of perfect retention would be overloaded in a similar circumstance. This option is not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
C) Reasonable but not 100% supported. Do we know that a successful generalization from past experiences requires clear memories of MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences? No. Maybe a successful generalization requires 20% recollection for all we know. DUMP IT! Note, that "MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences" ventures into extreme territory. We don't actually know that such a high level of retention is even possible.
D) This option goes to extreme on the negative side. So maybe an animal is capable of perfect recollection, but can we infer that this animal would then be incapable of generalizing from that information because of it? No. Too extreme. Maybe the animal could do a wonderful job of generalizing from perfect retention. Not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!
E) Yes! Notice the delicate and measured wording of this option. It's worded in such a way as to be GUARANTEED from the facts in the prompt. Yes, animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if the draw on generalizations from past experiences or similar situations. In fact, this option is so agreeable with the information in the prompt, it's probably playing it too conservative. We know this option with 100% certainty, therefore it's the correct option.
Thanks! But in my opinion, the answer should be (D), which it isn't. My reasoning is that in the passage, the word 'instead' is used to show contrast between 'generalising' and 'perfectly recalling every detail'. From this, we can infer that they are mutually exclusive or opposed. Answer (E) equates 'memory functioning' well with 'reacting appropriately'. Reasonable yes, but not inferred.
Would really appreciate your thoughts?
Cheers
This is inference based question, so we need to extract information what is given in argument:
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
What is given: Recalling some information of past experience would be compatible with any ability to generalize from those experience . Recalling every detail may or may not help- we don't know because no information is given in case animals remember all details of every incident , but such a scenario does not seem to be practical.
So D is out of scope ( recalling all details and generalization are of opposite sides , but no such information is given. The information is given : recalling something and generalization - can be matched)
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
Animals can react better if they have done generalization based on previous events. It is exactly what is given in argument.
SH93
Joined: 14 Apr 2021
Last visit: 17 Jan 2023
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 19
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.8
01 May 2021, 03:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
I get it that options A, B, C & D are eliminated as they are not 100% accurate based on the facts given in the passage. However, with Option-E, I have this thought: The passage does not mention the number of times animals can make an appropriate judgement if they draw on past experiences. So how can we say that "animals can often react more appropriately......." (as per option-E)?
Going by the neuroscientist's statement, can we say that all animals would make an appropriate judgement if they draw on past experience on every situation they encounter?
Going by the neuroscientist's statement, can we say that all animals would make an appropriate judgement if they draw on past experience on every situation they encounter?
