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

Question

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to focus its efforts to spending on primary schools in the poorest areas, to providing medicines and other basic supplies for health such as mosquito nets, and to a few key agricultural initiatives.

Professor B: Much education work has been ineffective. A village or town with poor schooling may be better off getting a road than a teacher. Once local farmers can transport produce to market, they will be willing to pay for schools—and to make sure the schools succeed.

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.

ID: 100400

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

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

AnishPassi · Answer

Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary schools in the poorest areas, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care such as mosquito nets, and to a few key agricultural initiatives.

The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to a handful of things.

What things?
1. Spending on primary schools in the poorest areas
2. providing medicines and other basic supplies for health case such as mosquito nets
3. and to a few key agricultural initiatives.

Essentially, Professor A states that the aid industry should begin to focus only on these three categories.

Mind you: The statement  doesn't mean  that the industry should  reduce its efforts of spending  on primary schools in the poorest areas.

Correct interpretation:  The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to these three things. i.e. they should not focus on other things.

Incorrect interpretation:  The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts in these three things. i.e. they should focus less on these three things.

Professor B: Much education work has been ineffective.

Professor B seems to start off with a different view. (One of the things Professor A wants the aid industry to focus on is education - primary schools in the poorest areas.)

A village or town with poor schooling may be better off getting a road than a teacher.

Professor B supports his point with elaboration. Instead of helping a town with poor schooling get a teacher, getting a better road maybe better.

Once local farmers can transport produce to market they will be willing to pay for schools -- and to make sure schools succeed.

Why might getting a road be better than getting a teacher? Because a road would help local farmers transport good to market. (They'll be able to sell their produce, and make money. And they'd be willing to use that money to pay for schools.) That way they would get schools to succeed.

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.

A fairly complex question in that the selections are not independent. The first selection has two requirements:

a. It should be something that A would likely disagree with.
b. Further, there should be another statement  among the remaining five  that B would use to support it. A statement would not support itself.

Here's how I went about it.

I broke down the task into the following steps:

i. For (1), shortlist the various statements that Prof A would likely disagree with.
ii. For the shortlisted, find which statements have support among the remaining five.
iii. If a statement supports the shortlisted options, also check whether that is something Prof B would agree with. (Since Prof B needs to take the statement to support (1). So, Prof B needs to agree with that viewpoint.)

Let's look at the steps in action.

i. Shortlist the various options that Prof. A would likely disagree with. 
 
Professor A would disagree with this statement. Parts of health and agriculture are categories that the professor would like the aid industry to focus on. Shortlist it.
 
Professor A would not disagree with this statement. Rejected.
 
Yes. Professor A would disagree with this statement. Parts of primary education is a category the professor would like the aid industry to focus on. Shortlist it.
 
Prof. A doesn't make such a comparison. Can't say that the prof. would disagree with this statement. Rejected.
 
Again, Prof. A makes no such comparison. Rejected.
 
No such comparison. Rejected.

We have two contenders left for (1) - A and C.

Now let's check which one out of these could Prof B support using one of the remaining 5 statements.

Essentially, (2) would need to be
1. something that would support (1)
2. something that Professor B would likely agree with

ii. Find a statement that offers support to A or C. Whichever statement does, check if that's something Professor B would agree with and use. 
 
A doesn't support C. It anyway can't support itself. Rejected.
 
This statement does mildly support A. But, Prof B has a view that aiding transportation is a better way to help schools succeed than to aid schools directly. So, Prof B wouldn't use this statement. Rejected.
 
C doesn't support A. It can't support itself. Rejected.
 
D supports A. But, Prof B doesn't discuss his views on health and agriculture at all. We don't know whether Prof B would agree with this statement. Rejected.
 
E weakerns C. It somewhat supports A. But Prof B would disagree with this statement. Rejected.
 
F supports C. Prof. B would agree with it, and thus could use it to support C. Great! We've got both our answers.

(1): C
(2): F.

Apt0810 · Answer

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 the aid industry.

Professor A might agree, given his support for aid spending in primary education.
Professor B would disagree, as he suggests local funding as a more effective solution.

Posted from my mobile device

kntombat · Answer

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.

maikikiuu · Answer

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.

kntombat · Answer

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

chetan2u · Answer

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.

CEdward · Answer

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

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

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 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.

The only statement that the dialogue strongly suggests Professor A would disagree with is the third option. 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.

The correct answer is The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does.

Given the answer above, the question requires identification of the statement 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 the sixth option.

The correct answer is Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people.

bb · Answer

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

StanleyFang · Answer

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

Raman109 · Answer

Given the arguments presented by Professor A and Professor B, we can infer their positions based on their statements and thus choose appropriate answers that each would agree or disagree with, and that logically support their viewpoints. Professor A's statement:  Professor A advocates for focusing aid efforts on primary education in the poorest areas, health care provisions like medicines and mosquito nets, and key agricultural initiatives. This suggests a strong belief in direct aid interventions in these areas.

Professor B's statement:  Professor B criticizes the effectiveness of education work and suggests that infrastructure improvements, like building roads, could be more beneficial initially. This viewpoint supports the idea that economic improvements can create a self-sustaining demand for education funded by local resources.

Analyzing the options:

The aid industry should focus less on the areas of health and agriculture than it now does.

Professor A  would disagree with this because it conflicts with his support for focusing aid on health and agriculture. 
  Professor B  wouldn't necessarily support this as his argument is not against health and agriculture but emphasizes prioritizing infrastructure over education initially.   
  The aid industry should focus more on primary education than it now does.

Professor A  would agree, aligning with his focus on spending in primary education. 
  Professor B  would disagree as he questions the effectiveness of current educational aid efforts.   
  The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does.

Professor A  would disagree with this statement, as he supports spending on primary education. 
  Professor B  would likely agree, providing logical support, based on his belief in the benefits of infrastructure leading to self-sustaining education funding.   
  Projects in health and agriculture are more likely to be successful if they are not paid for by the aid industry.

Neither professor explicitly supports or refutes this idea based on their statements. It doesn’t align closely with either professor’s argument.   
  Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by the aid industry.

Professor A  might agree, given his support for aid spending in primary education. 
  Professor B  would disagree, as he suggests local funding as a more effective solution.   
  Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people.

Professor A  would disagree as his view supports aid-funded projects. 
  Professor B  would agree and see this as logical support, based on his advocacy for local funding following economic improvements.    
 Conclusion:  Given the positions of Professor A and Professor B:

(1)  The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does. 
 
  Professor A  would likely disagree.   
 (2)  Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people. 
 
  Professor B  would likely find this statement to provide logical support for reducing focus on direct aid in education.    
These selections best represent the disagreement and support dynamics between the two professors based on their presented views.

Themightyknight · Answer

KarishmaB  can u explain statement 1 ???
professor A will disagree with ?
y cant statement 1 be the answer ? 
i was confused b/w 1 & 3

KarishmaB · Answer

The answers we are looking for should have these characteristics:  
  (1) should be something that prof A will disagree with (as per given data about his opinions)  
  (2) should be something that prof B would believe in to support (1) (as per given data about his opinions)

Our selection of (2) depends on (1) so to start with, focus only on getting (1).

Given Data:
Professor A: The aid industry should begin to focus its efforts to 
- spending on primary schools in the poorest areas, 
- providing medicines and other basic supplies for health 
- a few key agricultural initiatives.

Professor B: Much education work has been ineffective. Make a road to bring financial success to the village - so locals will pay for schools—and will make sure the schools succeed.

Prof A will NOT agree with these two as per what we know about him:
  (A) The aid industry should focus less on the areas of health and agriculture than it now does.
(C) The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does.

If (A) were the answer,  I would need something that prof B would agree with in support of (A). Only option (D) deals with health and agri. Option (D) does support option (A) but is it something prof B believes in? We don't know. We have no idea about what prof B believes in regarding health and agri.

If (C) were the answer , then we know that (F) supports it and it is likely that prof B supports F. He says that the locals should be made capable of aiding the school and making it successful. That aid industry's efforts in edu fail.

(F) Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people.

Note that selection of (2) depends on (1) AND selection of (1) depends on (2). They should both be appropriate together for the profs opinions.

Select (C) and (F)

Addu.23 · Answer

In all honestly, and please pardon my french, but this question is ass. How in the world is one supposed to understand that 'to limit to' means 'to make those efforts a top priority'? Understand all this in a question where one is supposed to spend <2 mins.

Apologies, but I'm really furious with such DI questions and I have my exam in 3 days :/

Apologies, but I'm really furious with such DI questions and I have my exam in 3 days :/

chillblade · Answer

I hate questions like this, where a tiny word makes all the difference. Super easy to overlook, especially if you are not a native English speaker.

Here is how to answer 1:

Limit efforts to = make a top priority
Limit efforts on = make a less of a priority

Since the A wants to limit efforts ON, therefore the opposite would be to spend less.

PeachSnapple1 · Answer

Not gonna lie, the   went straight over my head. The moment I saw the word  , I automatically assumed the author meant we need to cut down the resources and just skim through the rest of the sentence.

mkeshri185 · Answer

I have a very frustrating question. GMAT teachers and all says we should strictly stick to whatever is said in the passage only. If that is true then in the passage A doesn't talk about spending on 'PRIMARY EDUCTION'. A speaks about PRIMARY SCHOOLS in POOREST region mainly for healthcare. PRIMARY SCHOOL is no way same as PRIMARY EDUCATION. PRIMARY EDUCATION means related to the quality of Education where as PRIMARY SCHOOLS in POOREST region and health care.. means they are talking about some other facility. So why did we assume both to be same? Does it mean we have to assume as per the difficulty level? I am sure if anyone assumed this kind of assumption on a 805+ level question he would be surely wrong citing the same reason. Please clarify

egmat · Answer

Confusion 1: "Professor A talks about primary schools, but the answer says primary education. Aren't these different?"

No—spending on primary schools IS spending on primary education. They're not two separate things.
Here's why: When you allocate money to primary schools, that money automatically goes toward primary education.  You can't separate the institution from its function.

Simple analogy: 
 
 If I say "The city spent money on fire trucks" → They spent money on firefighting 
 If I say "The hospital spent money on MRI machines" → They spent money on medical diagnostics 
 If I say "We're investing in primary schools" → We're investing in primary education

The money doesn't go two places. Spending on schools = spending on what schools provide (education).

So when Professor A says "spend on primary schools," he's advocating for spending on primary education. The answer choice "spend LESS on primary education" directly contradicts what he wants, which is why he'd disagree with it.

Confusion 2: "Doesn't Professor A say primary schools are 'mainly for healthcare'?" 
No—this is a misreading of the sentence structure.

Professor A lists THREE separate aid focuses:
 
 Spending on primary schools in the poorest areas 
 Providing medicines and other basic supplies for health (mosquito nets) 
 Key agricultural initiatives

The word "to" before each item shows these are separate categories. Healthcare (medicines/mosquito nets) is a  different item  in the list, not a description of what schools do.
Wrong reading: "Primary schools   for healthcare" Correct reading: "Primary schools,   healthcare supplies,   agriculture"

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

(1)	(2)	Statements
		The aid industry should focus less on the areas of health and agriculture than it now does.
		The aid industry should focus more on primary education than it now does.
		The aid industry should focus its spending less on primary education than it now does.
		Projects in health and agriculture are more likely to be successful if they are not paid for by the aid industry.
		Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by the aid industry.
		Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by local people.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards