Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 17:33 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 17:33

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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92900
Own Kudos [?]: 618815 [43]
Given Kudos: 81588
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 821
Own Kudos [?]: 1409 [7]
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2022
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 70 [5]
Given Kudos: 35
Location: Italy
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.9
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Status:Professional GMAT Trainer
Affiliations: GMAT Coach
Posts: 386
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 198
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V44
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V44
GMAT 4: 770 Q50 V45 (Online)
GMAT 5: 780 Q51 V48
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Bunuel What's the original source of this one? I just saw it on the Focus Edition practice test. Thanks!
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92900
Own Kudos [?]: 618815 [0]
Given Kudos: 81588
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
Expert Reply
GMATCoachBen wrote:
Bunuel What's the original source of this one? I just saw it on the Focus Edition practice test. Thanks!


Hi Ben,

I don't recall the specific source of this question. However, if you encountered it in the Focus Edition, it is GMAT Prep then. It can't be a new question, though, as I posted this one back in 2022.

P.S. Edited the source tag.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Nov 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 131
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V39
GPA: 4
WE:General Management (Education)
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
I didnt understand how option E can be eliminated,If option E is negated then it can break the conclusion
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2022
Posts: 63
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [1]
Given Kudos: 88
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Other
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
1
Kudos
sram1496 wrote:
I didnt understand how option E can be eliminated,If option E is negated then it can break the conclusion


If you read the stimulus, it says that the corporation is requesting a split of the subsidy which means the govt will definitely receive more subsidy than it shares with the corp so this is just the repetition of one of the premises and thus can be eliminated.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Nov 2022
Posts: 84
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
A) fact stated in the argument - they will be charged it says. WRONG

B) CORRECT-Subsidy is received for calls to the province - the corp plan wants to make a system where calls made are free so this must be a necessary assumption or else the province would just be splitting subsidy for a totally different service which makes no sense for the sense. CORRECT

C) the question is not if they want to the question is if they will profit from it. WRONG

D)we know nothing about how it is charged and why is it relevant to the profits - it is just a charge for which they need subsidy. WRONG

E) Province can still be profitable if they get less than what they pay the corp if the money saved by the services of the corp surpasses the charges from the long distance calls. Let's say they were getting 102 points subsidy for 100 points call charges but corp saves them 68 points and they give 60 points to corp - they still get 10 points more than the intial deal of the subsidy. Focus on the first sentence makes it easier to understand. WRONG
Tutor
Joined: 10 Jul 2015
Status:Expert GMAT, GRE, and LSAT Tutor / Coach
Affiliations: Harvard University, A.B. with honors in Government, 2002
Posts: 1178
Own Kudos [?]: 2412 [0]
Given Kudos: 272
Location: United States (CO)
Age: 44
GMAT 1: 770 Q47 V48
GMAT 2: 730 Q44 V47
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
GMAT 4: 730 Q48 V42 (Online)
GRE 1: Q168 V169

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Let’s try to unpack this difficult, poorly-written GMAT Focus Critical Reasoning question.

Imagine that we run the provincial government. The national government pays us a subsidy for every long-distance call that comes into our region. Hence, the more calls that pass through our region, the more money we make.

Right now we have a good arrangement—but perhaps not enough calls are being made: there is (likely) a charge for such calls in many locations. When the corporation offers to make all long-distance calls "going into the province" free in exchange for 50% of subsidies, this could make financial sense for the province if there is an over 100% increase in such calls, due to the fact that they are not free in many places (but not necessarily in the province itself...more on this in the next paragraph). We would be giving away 50% of our subsidies, but calls would perhaps more than double, resulting in increased profits.

Choice A is not a necessary assumption—but it’s awfully close, and vague in its wording: what exactly qualifies as "long-distance telephone service IN the province?" (emphasis mine). I'm sure many would define this as any call going THROUGH the province, but I believe that GMAC defines it specifically as calls ORIGINATING in the province, which leaves an open "loophole" for calls originating elsewhere.

Start with the assumption negation technique: the negation of “at least some” is NONE. If without the plan, there were already NO CHARGES in the province FOR LONG DISTANCE CALLS, then why would we offer to split the subsidy with the government—right? They have nothing to offer the province other than free calls, which the province already has, and thus the number of calls FROM THE PROVINCE would not increase.

However, there is also a key issue at play here: the long-distance calls that are routed THROUGH the province, from point A to point B. Remember, it’s a rural province, so it’s not necessary that some long-distance calls cost money IN THE PROVINCE for the plan to make sense, because there are many other geographical areas at play here, presumably with much larger populations, that are not mentioned at all. Perhaps it’s those other places where the long-distance calls cost money, and where the corporation’s plan to make those calls free would make a significant difference in the number of calls routed THROUGH the province.

Ultimately, if choice A did not say "in the province," then it would be a great answer. However, there are many other places OUTSIDE the province where long-distance calls could increase with the corporation's plan to make these calls free.

Choice B is a necessary assumption for the argument. A "rural province" is by nature small in population, so there would not be enough of an increase in calls IN the province for this arrangement to make sense. However, if the subsidy applied not just to calls made FROM the province, but also THROUGH the province, then the number of long-distance calls could increase exponentially, and thus the subsidies and profits.

Choice E: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. Thus, profit simply means making more than you spend, and we have no idea how much the province actually spends for costs related to running the telephone service.

In addition, the province's choosing to share the government subsidy 50/50 with the corporation is technically not an expense. Read the stem again carefully—the province is not paying the corporation anything out of pocket; it’s only splitting the government subsidy, which is technically INCOME, not EXPENSES.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2016
Posts: 122
Own Kudos [?]: 21 [0]
Given Kudos: 598
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.12
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
Hi GMATNinja,

Would you please shed some light on why A is not correct? I'm confused. Is it because the choice includes the extreme word 'all'? Thank you.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 2642
Own Kudos [?]: 7775 [2]
Given Kudos: 55
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
tinbq

No, the word "all" is not a problem. Answer choice A doesn't matter, because it doesn't tell us anything about the possibility of profits if the plan is enacted. It just says that if the plan is NOT enacted, there wouldn't be any free long distance calls. That doesn't give us any information about what difference the plan would make, or how profitable either arrangement would be.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2023
Posts: 81
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [0]
Given Kudos: 33
Location: India
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
 
MartyMurray wrote:
To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province, the national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province. A corporation has offered to base a national long-distance telephone service in the province, allowing long-distance calls to be made without any charge to the callers, if the provincial government splits its subsidy with the corporation. The corporation argues that since all calls would be routed through the province, the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement.

The corporation's prediction about the effects its plan would have, if adopted, relies on which of the following assumptions?


The corporation's prediction is the following:

the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement

The reasoning for that prediction is that the national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province. So, by basing a national long-distance telephone service in the province and thus causing many long-distance calls to be routed into the province, the corporation will cause a large volume of subsidies to be paid to the provincial government.

The correct answer will be an assumption that the corporation has relied on in making the prediction.

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

What this choice says seems plausible. However, we are not looking for a plausible statement. We are looking for an assumption on which the prediction relies, and the prediction could be correct even if this choice is not true.

After all, even if it is the case that, without the plan, SOME long-distance telephone service in the province would NOT involve at least some charges to callers, the plan of collecting the subsidies by routing calls into the province could still be profitable for the provincial government.

Eliminate.

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

Notice that the plan is the following:

A corporation has offered to base a national long-distance telephone service in the province .... The corporation argues that since all calls would be routed through the province, the corporation will cause a large volume of subsidies to be paid to the provincial government.

We see that the plan involves calls "routed through the province." So, for the plan to work, subsidies must be paid on calls routed through the province.

So, if this choice is not true and the national government's subsidy would apply ONLY for calls made to phones in the province, then arrangement will not be profitable for the provincial government.

Thus, this choice is assumption on which the prediction relies.

(I personally don't really like this CR question because I don't think the way it works is very logical. I mean this "correct" answer is basically the assumption that the corporation has not misunderstood what "pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province" means. Normally, a assumption in a CR question is a key part of the argument that is understood but not stated. In this case, the assumption is basically that the corporation is not clueless about what's going on. At the same time, this choice is the only one that works at all. So, this question is gettable.)

Keep.

C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province.

The corporation is probably assuming what this choice says in coming up with the plan. However, we are not looking for something that is simply an assumption the corporation is making. We are looking for an assumption the prediction relies on, and the prediction does not rely on this choice.

After all, if this choice were not true, and the provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation EVEN IF doing so would NOT yield significant profits for the province, the plan as outlined would still result in the predicted outcome that the provincial government would profit greatly.

The prediction is about what would occur if the corporation's plan were implemented, not about what the provincial government is "interested in" doing. The provincial government could be interested in doing something that would not be profitable, but that fact would not affect what the outcome of this particular plan would be.

Eliminate.

D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller.

Notice that the corporation's plan is to allow long-distance calls to be made "without any charge to the callers."

Thus, if this choice were true, the plan would not work at all since a fixed percentage of no charge would be no subsidy.

Eliminate.

E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation.

This choice is tricky because it mentions an aspect of the plan. The plan does involve the province receiving more from the subsidy than it pays the corporation.

Notice, however, that the corporation's prediction could could be correct even if what this choice says is not true.

After all, if this choice were not true, and the arrangement would be profitable for the province even if the province DID NOT receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation, then the prediction that the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement would still be correct.

So, the prediction does not rely on this choice being true.

Eliminate.

The correct answer is (B).

­Hello MartyMurray Sir,

Kindly share your views on how should I negate answer choice B .
What I know is that you can negate only one piece of the answer choice. So, I am reading this sentence after negating like this :

The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

But this sentence is not making any sense to me.
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 821
Own Kudos [?]: 1409 [2]
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
 
Gangadhar111990 wrote:
­Hello MartyMurray Sir,

Kindly share your views on how should I negate answer choice B .
What I know is that you can negate only one piece of the answer choice. So, I am reading this sentence after negating like this :

The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

But this sentence is not making any sense to me.

Here's (B).

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

In Critical Reasoning, we have to be ready to override with logic any rules that we think work all the time but may not work in some cases.

In this case, the rule that, to negate a choice, we must change only one part doesn't quite make sense since, in this case, the "not only ... but" structure connects two parts of the choice.

So, we can adjust that rule to make it that we must negate only one key aspect of the choice even if, in doing so, we change two parts of the choice.

Choice (B) says that the subsidy would apply "not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province."

We see that the point is that the subsidy would apply to both types of calls, not to only one type. So, to negate the choice, we have to change both parts to express that the subsidy would apply only to one type and not to the second.

Thus, negated, (B) is the following:

B. The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, and not to some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.­­
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 624
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
Understanding the question - ­
To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province, the national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province. - Background info. 
A corporation has offered to base a national long-distance telephone service in the province, allowing long-distance calls to be made without any charge to the callers, if the provincial government splits its subsidy with the corporation. - Corporation's plan. 
The corporation argues that since all calls would be routed through the province, the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement. - Conclusion. 

While the premises talk about the government subsidy for calls going into the province, the corporation takes a giant leap when concluding, considering the calls that will be routed (maybe going to another province X) through this province. To bolster the conclusion, we need the missing piece of information that'll guide us toward additional subsidies coming from these routed calls. 

The corporation's prediction about the effects its plan would have, if adopted, relies on which of the following assumptions?

Option Elimination - We must find the missing premise, minimum condition, or assumption. 

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers. - what happens without a plan is out of scope. 

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only to calls made to phones in the province but also to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province. - Yes. It assures the additional subsidy, leading to the conclusion of the provincial government's profitability. 

C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province. - adding another minimum condition, but we still don't know if this minimum condition of "yield significant profits for the province" is fulfilled. Distortion. 

D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller. - The charge to the caller is "0." Are we saying the subsidy is 0? No. Moreover, how the subsidy is calculated is out of the scope of the question, which is to find the missing premise or minimum condition for the conclusion that "the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement."

E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation. - of course, as profit = revenue - profit, but is it even the scope of the argument? ­Our scope is limited to finding a missing premise for the conclusion "the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement" because all the calls will be routed through the province. The main linkage in the chain of events is a missing premise stating that the routed calls will also be covered in the subsidy, which is what option B does. Out of scope. 
GMAT Club Bot
Re: To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

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