Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Oct 2410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
This Halloween, get 20% off any Target Test Prep GMAT plan. Just use the coupon code HALLOWEEN20 at checkout to save up to $320.
Oct 2910:00 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
Scary Savings Alert! Prepare with up to 44% off on our plans and score 99th %ile on GMAT Focus. Claim this fa-BOO-lous deal & get access to a personalized study plan, 100+ video lessons, 5 mocks & more at prices starting $149. Hurry up!
Oct 3112:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On Thursday the 31st, GMAT Club Tests will be Absolutely Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PST
Oct 3111:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
Save 20% on Target Test Prep and get a perfect score like Julia. Through Thursday, October 31, get an EXTRA 20% OFF any Target Test Prep GMAT plan by using the coupon code HALLOWEEN20 at checkout.
Oct 3101:30 PM IST
-11:30 PM IST
With brand new features like:AI-driven Planner tool, 850+ data Insights practice questions and GMAT Focus Edition Adaptive mock tests with ESR+ analysis and personal mentor support, our course is the most comprehensive course for GMAT Focus Edition.- Nov 02
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test. - Nov 03
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 0311:30 AM EST
-12:30 PM EST
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!- Nov 13
05:30 AM PST
-06:00 PM PST
We are excited to bring you the Fall edition of the MBA Spotlight Fair! Meet admission officers from the top 20 MBA programs—including HBS, Stanford, and Wharton—as you prepare for Round 2 applications.
12 Oct 2021, 22:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
mivas
VeritasKarishma
B does make sense. But I eliminated it because it seems to challenge the premise. My understanding is that the premise in GMAT is to be taken as truth and not to be questioned. In this particular question, there is no other option besides B which make sense. But in general(For actual Gmat questions) is it a good strategy to reject answer choices that are questioning the truth of the premise?
B does make sense. But I eliminated it because it seems to challenge the premise. My understanding is that the premise in GMAT is to be taken as truth and not to be questioned. In this particular question, there is no other option besides B which make sense. But in general(For actual Gmat questions) is it a good strategy to reject answer choices that are questioning the truth of the premise?
mivas
Option (B) does not challenge any premise.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
It tells us that the examiner is skilled at detecting spillage. He has been able to detect even in cases when it was more difficult to detect, say when spillage was hidden or inside a crack etc.
Here he was not able to detect any spillage increases the likelihood that there was no spillage. When an expert could not detect it, it does make it more likely that no spillage happened (but doesn't prove beyond doubt).
Since we want to strengthen our argument, knowing that the examiner is an expert strengthens it.
gloomybison
Joined: 30 Mar 2021
Last visit: 02 Jan 2024
Posts: 227
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 93
Location: Turkey
Schools: Yale '26 (A) LBS '26 (WL) Booth '26 (A) Columbia CBS'26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A) Tuck '26 (A) Wharton '26 (D) Sloan '26 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
GPA: 3.69
Schools: Yale '26 (A) LBS '26 (WL) Booth '26 (A) Columbia CBS'26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A) Tuck '26 (A) Wharton '26 (D) Sloan '26 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
Posts: 227
Kudos:
200
07 Dec 2021, 06:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
VeritasKarishma
I am not sure about this question, according to offical explanation - If that person is terrible at finding evidence of spilled punch, his testimony is of questionable value, but if that person has a track record of punch-detecting success, his failure to find the punch is potentially significant - we try to play on punch-detecting skills of the person who examines the situation, however in B we say "person examining found..." so B is kinda attacking the premises unless the person mentioned in B is different than the person mentioned in the premises
I am not sure about this question, according to offical explanation - If that person is terrible at finding evidence of spilled punch, his testimony is of questionable value, but if that person has a track record of punch-detecting success, his failure to find the punch is potentially significant - we try to play on punch-detecting skills of the person who examines the situation, however in B we say "person examining found..." so B is kinda attacking the premises unless the person mentioned in B is different than the person mentioned in the premises
07 Dec 2021, 21:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
gloomybison
VeritasKarishma
I am not sure about this question, according to offical explanation - If that person is terrible at finding evidence of spilled punch, his testimony is of questionable value, but if that person has a track record of punch-detecting success, his failure to find the punch is potentially significant - we try to play on punch-detecting skills of the person who examines the situation, however in B we say "person examining found..." so B is kinda attacking the premises unless the person mentioned in B is different than the person mentioned in the premises
I am not sure about this question, according to offical explanation - If that person is terrible at finding evidence of spilled punch, his testimony is of questionable value, but if that person has a track record of punch-detecting success, his failure to find the punch is potentially significant - we try to play on punch-detecting skills of the person who examines the situation, however in B we say "person examining found..." so B is kinda attacking the premises unless the person mentioned in B is different than the person mentioned in the premises
In option (B), "the person examining the tile" is the same as the person examining the tile in our case of Marvin & party last night.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
... means that the person who was examining last night has been able to detect such evidence in even more difficult to detect places in other cases (at other parties on other days). So it tells us that he is skilled at detecting evidence.
If he couldn't detect, it makes it more likely that there is no evidence.
