Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 16:16 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 16:16

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
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 98
Own Kudos [?]: 286 [6]
Given Kudos: 25
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
Send PM
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4452
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [21]
Given Kudos: 130
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Concentration: International Business, Strategy
GPA: 3.7
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 53
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the nice explanation.

Just one point that I cannot agree.... open to discussion

I think professor A mentioned TWO areas, not THREE:

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts
(a) to spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care,
and
(b) to a few key agriculture initiatives.

I think the parallelism only makes sense in the above way - each item begins with "to", and the connector "and" is used to connect the two items.
", providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care" is just elaborating how the money is supposed to be spent on primary schools, i.e. providing health care supplies to those primary schools.

If, let's assume, the professor wanted to mention THREE areas, then let's check the parallelism:

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to
(a) spending on primary schools,
(b) providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care,
and
(c) to a few key agriculture initiatives.

The above parallelism is compromised.

--
Additional evidence that support the TWO-item as discussed above:

Per OG explanation for Question #43A

"For example, if the relative distribution of spending by the aid industry between primary schools in the poorest areas, medicines and other basic supplies for health care such as mosquito nets, and the few key agricultural initiatives is maintained, while spending in other areas is drastically reduced, then the aid industry will thereby focus its spending more on primary education than it now does."

Notice the wording "between", not "among". This indicates that Professor A lists two items, not three.

Just my 2c. Open for discussion.


mikemcgarry wrote:
First of all, for clarity, here are the text of the statements:
Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care, and to a few key agriculture initiatives.
Professor B: Much education work has been ineffective. A village or town with poor schooling may be better off getting a new road than a teacher. Once local farmers can transport produce to market they will be wiling to pay for a school --- and to make the schools succeed.

So, Professor A says, essentially --- right now we are spending aid money on a whole bunch of stuff --- let's cut everything else out, and focus just on three absolutely essential areas:
(a) primary education
(b) basic healthcare
(c) maybe an occasional agricultural project now and again

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4452
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [0]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Dear thulsy

It appears that you are correct --- grammatically, the prompt lumps (spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care) all into one thing, and then (a few key agriculture initiatives) as another thing. GMAC does this in the question, and is consistent in their written solution.

I agree that's how GMAC divides things up, and I think that's inane. This is one question on which I'm going to go out on a limb and say: GMAC did not do the best job of capturing the most logical relationships in the grammar they chose. Clearly, on logical grounds, the medical stuff is in a different category from the school stuff. It's exceptionally difficult to imagine any logical scheme of categorization that would put medical stuff and academic stuff in the same category, but would put agricultural stuff in a different category.

What I suspect is that one person at GMAC wrote the question, and with so many other concerns about crafting the question, was a little sloppy in the grammar --- perhaps the question was crafted by committee, and the grammar was lost in the shuffle ---- and then some other poor schmuck had to write the solutions to a question that was already set in stone, and this latter person choose at least to make everything consistent in the solutions.

GMAC typically holds up exceptionally high standards, but they are human, and at times, they make less than perfect choices. I'm sure it's been challenging for them to get the IR section up and flying by 6/5, so they had to get these questions out ASAP. It's hard ---- they're only human.

That's my 2¢.

Mike :)
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 53
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
Hi Mike, Yeah I agree that it's weird to group education and healthcare into one single item. So the only justification I can come up is: He is talking about healthcare facilities in those primary schools....

Anyway, this 2-item or 3-item distinction seems not to affect the answer to this question. Perhaps it's GMAC's oversight, as you said.

mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear thulsy

It appears that you are correct --- grammatically, the prompt lumps (spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care) all into one thing, and then (a few key agriculture initiatives) as another thing. GMAC does this in the question, and is consistent in their written solution.

I agree that's how GMAC divides things up, and I think that's inane. This is one question on which I'm going to go out on a limb and say: GMAC did not do the best job of capturing the most logical relationships in the grammar they chose. Clearly, on logical grounds, the medical stuff is in a different category from the school stuff. It's exceptionally difficult to imagine any logical scheme of categorization that would put medical stuff and academic stuff in the same category, but would put agricultural stuff in a different category.

What I suspect is that one person at GMAC wrote the question, and with so many other concerns about crafting the question, was a little sloppy in the grammar --- perhaps the question was crafted by committee, and the grammar was lost in the shuffle ---- and then some other poor schmuck had to write the solutions to a question that was already set in stone, and this latter person choose at least to make everything consistent in the solutions.

GMAC typically holds up exceptionally high standards, but they are human, and at times, they make less than perfect choices. I'm sure it's been challenging for them to get the IR section up and flying by 6/5, so they had to get these questions out ASAP. It's hard ---- they're only human.

That's my 2¢.

Mike :)
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 259
Own Kudos [?]: 239 [0]
Given Kudos: 58
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
In my opinion mike's explanation is the right one.
anyway this does not affect the outcome.
I don't understand why the structure of: to A, B and C is not correct.
anyone?
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 53
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
The original sentence is:
to A, B, and to C

If you think A, B, and C are parallel, then the word "to" is odd.
So the only legitimate parallelism is:
to A, B
and
to C
In other word, B is a modifier of A (or you can say A and B are bundled)

ronr34 wrote:
In my opinion mike's explanation is the right one.
anyway this does not affect the outcome.
I don't understand why the structure of: to A, B and C is not correct.
anyone?
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
This question got me because the original problem said precisely, "The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary education in the poorest areas,..."

Given that these problems resemble critical reasoning problems, I take every word to be highly important. In this case, I took the words in the poorest areas very literally.

Do we know for certain that professor A wants the aid industry to "focus more on primary education than it currently does?"
No, we only know that he wants it to focus more on primary education in the poorest areas. That is why I was confused... maybe professor A wants the overall focus on primary education to decrease, but primary education in the poorest areas to increase.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4452
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
gataf wrote:
This question got me because the original problem said precisely, "The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary education in the poorest areas,..."
Given that these problems resemble critical reasoning problems, I take every word to be highly important. In this case, I took the words in the poorest areas very literally.
Do we know for certain that professor A wants the aid industry to "focus more on primary education than it currently does?"
No, we only know that he wants it to focus more on primary education in the poorest areas. That is why I was confused... maybe professor A wants the overall focus on primary education to decrease, but primary education in the poorest areas to increase.


Dear gataf,
You are correct --- many IR problems like this are very much like CR questions. This is why the question type has this name --- it asks you to "integrate" RC & CR skills with quantitative skills.

I would say that, on both CR and IR, you have to be careful. On the one hand, you have to read carefully and consider the importance of each and every word. It's absolutely true that both questions punish folks who are sloppy and careless readers. BUT, on the other hand, it's a problem if you are too literalistic. Both questions also punish narrow literalism. So you see, what both require is a balanced approach.

Here, the first professor says: "The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary education in the poorest areas." So, this professor wants to increase the spending in education, especially in primary education, and especially in the poorest areas. If the aid organizations, for example, double the amount they spend on primary education in the poorest areas, then their overall primary education budget would increase.

Now, you argue --- if they spend more on primary education in the poorest areas, but decrease spending on primary education in all other areas, maybe overall spending on primary education would decrease. First of all, there is absolutely no support for that interpretation in the argument. The arguments contrast spending on education vs. spending on other things like transportation, infrastructure, etc. There is absolutely no attention given to spending on primary education in poor vs. not-so-poor places. Always be careful of taking too seriously objections that go far down a path that that argument doesn't pursue at all. Furthermore, think about motivations. People who argue for education do so because they think education provides the opportunity for people to improve their own lives, raise themselves up by their own boot straps, that sort of thing. No realistic advocate of education is going to say: increase educational spending on this one group, but decrease it on these other groups so that overall education spending drops. That is absolutely unrealistic in terms of what actual education advocates in society would say. In approaching CR & IR, you need to have some basic sense of the push-and-pull of real world issues, of what advocates might reasonably say and what they never would say. After all, part of what the GMAT is testing is: how well do you understand the issues of the modern world. If you make wild decisions with no basis in the face of pressing real world issues, probably you are not going to be a successful manager. Does that make sense?

One excellent way to get a more grounded sense of the push-and-pull of real world issues --- read the Economist magazine every week.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :-)
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4383
Own Kudos [?]: 32869 [0]
Given Kudos: 4453
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
premise: I spent at least 2.30-3.00 minutes to understand what GMAT wants me to do in this question. As such, the last statement; for me is not properly formulated......mah :(

After this, from A to F on what A agree and B disagree. 20 seconds to answer this stupid question. C (primary education ---> primary school) F (local farmer ---> local people)

Oh Gosh :x

By the way: thank you mike ;)
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
Reasoning diagram:

Professor A: contends to limit efforts in three aspects as below:
1. Spending on primary school in poorest area
2. Providing medicine and other basic supply for health care
3. A few key agriculture initiatives

Professor B: road better than a teacher <-- if local people could transport the products, they will pay for school and make sure the effects

Purpose: we need two options:
1. Professor A opposed
2. Professor B will use it to support 1.

It will be easy if we start from confirming the “2”, Viz. professor B will agree with it:
Only F is closed to it

Then we need confirm “1”
The key is which one is the “2” support, viz. not put so much money on school, obviously, only C.

In test, up to now, it is ok; we do not need further more work. But right now, we can:

Professor contends: limit efforts in three aspects, viz. the total amount should be reduced. That purpose is the key, not just reduced efforts in just one aspect, not two aspects. The “C” only address one aspect, so it is against to the professor’s argument.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2015
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
1
Kudos
thulsy wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the nice explanation.

Just one point that I cannot agree.... open to discussion

I think professor A mentioned TWO areas, not THREE:

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts
(a) to spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care,
and
(b) to a few key agriculture initiatives.

I think the parallelism only makes sense in the above way - each item begins with "to", and the connector "and" is used to connect the two items.
", providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care" is just elaborating how the money is supposed to be spent on primary schools, i.e. providing health care supplies to those primary schools.

If, let's assume, the professor wanted to mention THREE areas, then let's check the parallelism:

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to
(a) spending on primary schools,
(b) providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care,
and
(c) to a few key agriculture initiatives.

The above parallelism is compromised.

--
Additional evidence that support the TWO-item as discussed above:

Per OG explanation for Question #43A

"For example, if the relative distribution of spending by the aid industry between primary schools in the poorest areas, medicines and other basic supplies for health care such as mosquito nets, and the few key agricultural initiatives is maintained, while spending in other areas is drastically reduced, then the aid industry will thereby focus its spending more on primary education than it now does."

Notice the wording "between", not "among". This indicates that Professor A lists two items, not three.

Just my 2c. Open for discussion.


mikemcgarry wrote:
First of all, for clarity, here are the text of the statements:
Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care, and to a few key agriculture initiatives.
Professor B: Much education work has been ineffective. A village or town with poor schooling may be better off getting a new road than a teacher. Once local farmers can transport produce to market they will be wiling to pay for a school --- and to make the schools succeed.

So, Professor A says, essentially --- right now we are spending aid money on a whole bunch of stuff --- let's cut everything else out, and focus just on three absolutely essential areas:
(a) primary education
(b) basic healthcare
(c) maybe an occasional agricultural project now and again

Mike :)

I attempted the question twice at an interval of just 3 days. Both the time I comprehended the question differently.

1) Limit efforts means channelise the effort to the list of items. In other words focus more on these.
2) Limits efforts mean put a limit as if you are spending too much already.

Is the second interpretation wrong? That actually reverses the who essence of the question.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 32655
Own Kudos [?]: 821 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: This IR Questions Stumped Me - 2 Professors' Statements: [#permalink]
Moderators:
DI Forum Moderator
1031 posts
RC & DI Moderator
11169 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne