In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency's records were revie

In 1994, Marut got some actual info on Goro.
Marut found that since 1963, their projection of what Goro's GNP would be five years later was a serious underestimate but their estimate for the previous year—a Goro state secret—was accurate.

So prior to 1994, Marut did not have this info so they used to predict future GNP and estimate last year's GNP.

In 1963, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1968 and would estimate 1962's GNP.
In 1964, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1969 and would estimate 1963's GNP.
In 1965, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1970 and would estimate 1964's GNP.
In 1966, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1971 and would estimate 1965's GNP.
In 1967, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1972 and would estimate 1966's GNP.
In 1968, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1973 and would estimate 1967's GNP.
In 1969, Marut would predict Goro's GNP of 1974 and would estimate 1968's GNP.

Now think - In 1969, Marut estimated 1968's GNP again. But in 1963, they had predicted 1968's number differently. The same would have happened every year from now on.

So even before 1994, they would have reason to believe that their 5 yr predictions are not accurate. They themselves revised their estimates 6 yrs later and did not stick to their predictions of 6 yrs ago.

Hence (D) is correct.

Is it right to say that B option is correct if the question is asked to strengthen the argument?

Please suggest VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun

To strengthen an argument, you must be given a conclusion in the argument. As given, this argument has only premises (facts). What are we going to strengthen here? The question of whether (B) would strengthen or not does not arise.

I didn't understand the question, I answered with POE. Expecting a more clear explanation.

Hi MHIKER,

You could go through this post, if you haven't already.

In Marut, Foreign Trade agency's records were reviewed in 1994 in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro.

It is given that the review revealed that-
every year since 1963
the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.
And that
the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate
We need to find an option that is most strongly supported by the statements given

(A) Goro's GNP fluctuated greatly between 1963 and 1994.
There’s no data to support this. Eliminate

(B) Prior to 1995, Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency in making its five-year projections.
There’s no data that suggests that Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency. Eliminate.

(C) The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time.

The agency’s projection was a serious underestimate. The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time is not supported by the statements given. Eliminate

(D) Even before the new information came to light, the agency had reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.

This is supported by the argument.
It is given that the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.
Only the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate.
This shows that there was a difference in both the figures ( one- that is almost accurate and the other one that was a serious underestimate) This gives them a reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.
Correct.

(E) The agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut.
It is beyond the scope of the argument to say that the agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency's records were reviewed in 1994 in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro. The review revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency's projection of what Goro's gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate. The review also revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency estimated Goro's GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.

Of the following claims, which is most strongly supported by the statements given ?

During 1963 ~ 1994
P : estimate of GNP five years later was a serious underestimate.
P : previous year GNP estimate was very accurate


(A) Goro's GNP fluctuated greatly between 1963 and 1994.
-> Given the premise in the argument, we can only know that Marut did make inaccurate estimation but do not know about what actually Goro's GNP looked like.

(B) Prior to 1995, Goro had not released data intended to mislead the agency in making its five-year projections.
-> Irrelevant. Maybe Goro did released intendedly or may did not. The given premise is more likely to support that Goro did intentionally provide data to mislead Marut.

(C) The amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro tended to increase over time.
-> We are only given information that Marut agency did make mistake in estimation but do not know how much degree it was wrong.

(D) Even before the new information came to light, the agency had reason to think that at least some of the five-year projections it had made were inaccurate.
-> Correct. The time extents from 1963 ~ 1994 thus the agency would have had plenty of time to evaluate its original estimation. Agency would also have been able to figure out that it did make a wrong estimation.

(E) The agency's five year projections of Goro's GNP had no impact on economic planning in Marut.
-> Irrelevant. Having an impact and making an wrong estimation is not related in this argument.

size of this explanation is equivalent to that of an LSAT reading comprehension.

I will describe how D is correct.

Since, D says that before even new info came to light, the agency knew it already that something was wrong.

How?

5 year ahead predictions:
1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993

1 year previous prediction:
1963, 1964, 1965, ...... 1993

Now, No agency will re-predict/correct a already predicted values for years 68, 73, 83, 88, 93.
Why? Because if predictions are same or matching with what was already predicted 5 years before, no need to change it.

But, Agency predicted for all years after that year was passed. Hence, 68, 73, 83, 88, 93 were re-predicted or adjusted.

Agency will adjust only when something was wrong ( last prediction was in-accurate)


Remember: Acc. to D, Agency found out this flaw before new info, so please don't use the findings of new information to justify D.

This is an INFERENCE CR.
Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the passage will be contradicted.

D, negated:
The agency had no reason to think that any of its five-year projections had been inaccurate.
This negation contradicts the passage's contention that the agency's projections underestimated the actual GNP.
Since the negation of D contradicts the passage, D is a valid inference.

Understand the Passage

In the country of Marut, the Foreign Trade agency’s records were reviewed in 1994 in light of information then newly available about neighboring Goro.In Marut, some agency’s records were reviewed in 1994 after some new information about neighboring Goro became available.

The review revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency’s projection of what Goro’s gross national product (GNP) would be five years later was a serious underestimate.Every year since 1963, the agency made a prediction about what Goro’s GNP would be five years later. All these predictions were serious underestimates. (Now, the newly available information about Goro probably contains data about its GNP since 1963. On comparing, we find that Marut’s agency was greatly underestimating Goro’s GNP.)

The review also revealed that in every year since 1963, the agency estimated Goro’s GNP for the previous year—a Goro state secret—very accurately.The agency also made another estimate every year: what was Goro’s GNP for the previous year. In light of new information, we can see that these estimates were very accurate.

Predict an Answer

This question is an inference question. The passage contains a list of facts. There is no conclusion in the passage.

The agency made two estimates every year since 1963: one about Goro’s GNP five years later and one about Goro’s GNP for the previous year. Till 1994, the former estimate was always a serious underestimate, and the latter estimate was always very accurate.

Let’s consider the year 1982. One estimate of Goro’s GNP for year 1982 must have been made in 1977, and another one in 1983. Since the former one was a serious underestimate and the latter one very accurate, we can infer that the latter one was greater (in numerical value) than the former one. And this difference must have existed for every such pair of estimates.

Option Analysis

(A) Incorrect. We cannot infer this statement from the given facts. It is possible that Goro’s GNP remained the same from 1963 to 1994. This possibility does not contradict any of the facts given in the passage. Besides, the option says, ‘fluctuated GREATLY’. Since we cannot be sure whether Goro’s GNP fluctuated, we cannot say that it fluctuated GREATLY.

(B) Incorrect. The reason why Goro had not released its data before 1995 is not given. One of the possible results of Goro’s not releasing data was that the agency did not make accurate predictions. However, we cannot say that this was the intention of Goro for not releasing data. Confusing an implication of a certain action with the intention behind that action is one of the very common traps in CR (and even in RC). For example: If the passage says that X resulted in Y, the option will say that the intention behind undertaking X was to cause Y. This option is incorrect. We cannot talk about the intention just by looking at the result. I may take GMAT to get into some degree program. However, I may end up doing GMAT tutoring after scoring spectacularly high on GMAT. This does not mean that I took GMAT to get into GMAT tutoring. Right?

(C) Incorrect. It is entirely possible, given the facts, that the agency underestimated what Goro’s GNP would be five years later by the SAME amount year after year. It is also possible that the amount by which the agency underestimated the GNP it projected for Goro DECREASED over time i.e. the five-year projections became less and less serious underestimates over the years (less serious than previous years; however, still serious in the absolute sense).

For example: In 1963, the agency underestimated Goro’s GNP for 1968 by $50 billion. In 1964, the agency underestimated Goro’s GNP for 1969 by $49.9 billion. In 1965, the agency underestimated Goro’s GNP for 1970 by $49.8 billion. And so on. All of these estimates are probably serious underestimates, but they are probably becoming less and less serious over time.

(D) Correct. We can infer that the agency had REASON TO THINK that some of its 5-year projections were inaccurate. We, however, CANNOT INFER that the agency actually THOUGHT so.

Let’s understand how.

In 1963, the agency would have made a projection for Goro’s GNP for the year 1968. Let’s say it was X.

In 1969, the agency would have again estimated Goro’s GNP for 1968. Let’s say it was Y.

We know from the passage that X was a serious underestimate and that Y was a very accurate estimate. Given this information, we can understand that X and Y must have been very different numbers. Now, since Y was a later estimate and was very different from X, there was a reason to believe that the X was an inaccurate estimate. Why? Because both X and Y cannot be accurate while being substantially different and because Y is a recent estimate and thus expectedly a better estimate than X.

So, we can say that the agency had reason to think that some of its five-year projections were inaccurate. However, since we don’t know that the agency compared its 5-year projections with its last-year estimates, we cannot be sure that the agency actually thought that some of its projections were inaccurate.

(E) Incorrect. Whether the five-year projections had an impact on economic planning in Marut cannot be inferred at all from the passage. The projections might have had a substantial impact on the economic planning in Marut. This possibility does not contradict anything given in the passage.

Questions:
Most strongly infered

Argument:
Prediction for future is somewhat wrong.
Analysis of the past is accurate.

Let's eliminate choices:
A- We do not care how does GNP changes!
B - We do not care of the intentions of Goro!
C - Partial. Maybe, it increase or decrease.
E - We do not care of the impact of Blah-blah.
D - There is a reason why the difference occurs.

Posted from my mobile device