Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to

Hello, kntombat. I chose (C) for 1 and (F) for 2. I think the second one is relatively straightforward. The first, though, requires a careful consideration of just what the opening line is saying:

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary schools in the poorest areas
Translation: The aid industry should prioritize spending on such primary schools.

This is a classic sleight of hand on GMAT™ IR questions. To limit efforts to in this sense means to make those efforts a top priority (by scaling back on or eliminating other efforts). To limit efforts on would convey the opposite meaning. I suspect that someone on the GMAC™ end tossed in that -ing + on just to muddle the meaning. Shame on that person.

I hope that helps. I understand the confusion. Thank you for thinking to ask me to clarify.

- Andrew

The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does- Professor A disagree with it since he is only talking about health care and agro initiatives

Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people, Yes since professor 2 qoutes "Once local farmers can transport produce to market they will be willing to pay for schools -- and to make sure schools succeed"

Posted from my mobile device

Sajjad1994, shouldn't the answer for 1 be B? The criteria for choosing an answer option in 1 was " Professor A would likely disagree with ", option b states that "The aid industry should focus more on primary education than it now does.", this is something professor A disagrees with he wants the "aid companies" to focus on healthcare.
Whereas option c states that "The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does", which is what professor A wants in the first place, he wants the aid industry to focus its spending less on education and focus on provide healthcare>

I would love to hear you thoughts on this or of anyone else as and when they go through the post.

By reading the prompt, I learn that:
Prof A: likes to focus on health programs --> less focus on primary education, by clearly saying "limit its effort to" (option C)
Prof B: focus on infrastructure, then the local could pay the school and is incentive to ensure the success of the schools --> also imply less focus on primary education, at least not directly spend on primary schools.

While the question asks something that Prof A would disagree and B will support such disagreement --> something Prof A and B disagree. Per my understanding the disagreement lies in the way to help the poorest area.

And regarding the focus of the aid industry, A and B are on the same side (less focus). So for me this question is paradox.

I am wondering whether this is an official question.

chetansharma, yashikaagarwal, AndrewN, I would love to hear your take on this IR question.

Hi

As also explained above by AndrewN, here limit is used as restrict.
Remember we used to be told in childhood - limit your speech/views to the topic being discussed.
Or the politician limited his work to his constituency.
This means he just worked on his constituency or the speech should be restricted to the topic being discussed.

Here too rather the professor A says that the spending should be restricted to
a) spending on primary schools in the poorest areas,
b) providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care such as mosquito nets, and
c) to a few key agricultural initiatives.

So C goes against what professor A strongly feels about.

F is a straightforward answer.
_________________

For 1. Why can't it be A? and for 2. D?
_________________

The official explanation seems to be in a direct contradiction of what the original instructions/statements said. It is simply a typo. The rest of the explanation works if you just ignore the part that clearly contradicts the stem but let me know if not.

Professor A would likely disagree with (1) and Professor B would take (2) to present logical support for (1).


-BB

_________________

Hi, I am Stanley, I think there is something wrong from the IR question no. IR00848, the question narrative and the answer explanation are quite contrary, which is also strange. ---> My question mark is between the statement "Professor B would take (2) to present logical support for (1)" and "Professor B would take the second statement to present evidence against the first."

The question narrative says:
Suppose that the professors' statements express their genuine opinions. Select statements (1) and (2) as follows: Professor A would likely disagree with (1) and Professor B would take (2) to present logical support for (1). Select only two statements, one per column. ---> Require us to select one item that Professor B would ”support” for (1)

But in the answer explanation says:
The wording of the question suggests that the correctness of an answer for one of the response opportunities will depend on the correctness of the answer to the other. We are to find a statement in the table such that the information indicates Professor A would likely disagree with the first statement and
---> Professor B would take the second statement to present evidence “against” the first.

Also, the explanation is really vague : Does’t show whether the statement (2) support or refute statement (1)…
B. Infer
Given the answer for A, the question requires identification of the statement within the table that Professor B would take to be evidence for the statement that the aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does. The claims attributed to Professor B, in the context of the dialogue with Professor A, strongly suggest that she would take such evidence to be provided by F.
The correct answer is F, Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people.

BR,
Stanley