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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
22 Apr 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:30) correct
30%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 90
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Prosecutor: The current Mayor of Tivo was elected in 2015. Each year since then, at least seven companies have been prosecuted for violating anti-pollution laws. In 2015, under the previous mayor, only two companies were prosecuted for violating anti-pollution laws. So, the previous mayor was more tolerant of polluters than the new one is.
Journalist: But in 2015, far fewer companies actually violated the anti-pollution laws, and now many more companies regularly do so.
The journalist challenges the prosecutor’s argument by doing which of the following?
A) Including data from further into the past than the prosecutor’s data
B) Highlighting that the argument illegitimately forms a general conclusion with a sample of only a few cases as a basis
C) Challenging the veracity of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion reached by the prosecutor
D) Introducing evidence that undercuts an assumption in the argument made by the prosecutor
E) Stating that the argument assumes that information about some members of a group applies to all members of that group
Journalist: But in 2015, far fewer companies actually violated the anti-pollution laws, and now many more companies regularly do so.
The journalist challenges the prosecutor’s argument by doing which of the following?
A) Including data from further into the past than the prosecutor’s data
B) Highlighting that the argument illegitimately forms a general conclusion with a sample of only a few cases as a basis
C) Challenging the veracity of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion reached by the prosecutor
D) Introducing evidence that undercuts an assumption in the argument made by the prosecutor
E) Stating that the argument assumes that information about some members of a group applies to all members of that group
22 Apr 2026, 23:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Journalist: But in 2015, far fewer companies actually violated the anti-pollution laws, and now many more companies regularly do so.
journalist is basically going against by saying that under last mayor fewer companies violated pollution laws thats why there few companies prosecuted. so he is basically rejecting the prosecutors claim about last mayor being tolerant of polluters.
A) Including data from further into the past than the prosecutor’s data
he is using thst data to challenge the prosecutors claim. so only half correct. reject.
B) Highlighting that the argument illegitimately forms a general conclusion with a sample of only a few cases as a basis.
no this is not correct, because argument was not build upon only few cases though. for the prosecutor to be true he has to assume that under both mayor more or less same numbers of companies committed to anti pollution laws.
C) Challenging the veracity of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion reached by the prosecutor.
no he is no rejecting prosecutors claim about old mayor but rather he is saying why only only few companies were charged. reject.
D) Introducing evidence that undercuts an assumption in the argument made by the prosecutor
yes, he is basically saying why only few companies were charged under old mayor. so he is challenging the assumption made by prosecutor. for the prosecutor to be right, he must assume that both mayor same num of companies committing crimes. but journalist is saying why only few companies were charged. so this choice is correct.
E) Stating that the argument assumes that information about some members of a group applies to all members of that group
this is clearly irrelevant to discussion here. reject.
journalist is basically going against by saying that under last mayor fewer companies violated pollution laws thats why there few companies prosecuted. so he is basically rejecting the prosecutors claim about last mayor being tolerant of polluters.
A) Including data from further into the past than the prosecutor’s data
he is using thst data to challenge the prosecutors claim. so only half correct. reject.
B) Highlighting that the argument illegitimately forms a general conclusion with a sample of only a few cases as a basis.
no this is not correct, because argument was not build upon only few cases though. for the prosecutor to be true he has to assume that under both mayor more or less same numbers of companies committed to anti pollution laws.
C) Challenging the veracity of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion reached by the prosecutor.
no he is no rejecting prosecutors claim about old mayor but rather he is saying why only only few companies were charged. reject.
D) Introducing evidence that undercuts an assumption in the argument made by the prosecutor
yes, he is basically saying why only few companies were charged under old mayor. so he is challenging the assumption made by prosecutor. for the prosecutor to be right, he must assume that both mayor same num of companies committing crimes. but journalist is saying why only few companies were charged. so this choice is correct.
E) Stating that the argument assumes that information about some members of a group applies to all members of that group
this is clearly irrelevant to discussion here. reject.
ExpertsGlobal5
22 Apr 2026, 23:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Option D clearly indicates what the Journalist is trying to do which is to give evidence in order to challenge an assumption made by the Prosecutor.
ExpertsGlobal5
