GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 10 Dec 2018, 16:15

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free lesson on number properties

December 10, 2018

December 10, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Practice the one most important Quant section - Integer properties, and rapidly improve your skills.
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

December 11, 2018

December 11, 2018

09:00 PM EST

10:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. December 11 at 9 PM EST.

# Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 319
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 03 Aug 2018, 02:28
8
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (02:21) correct 40% (02:21) wrong based on 411 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the argument relies?

A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.

C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.

D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.

E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.

Originally posted by Ekland on 18 Apr 2016, 03:39.
Last edited by Bunuel on 03 Aug 2018, 02:28, edited 3 times in total.
Edited the question and added OA
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7098
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 04:33
3
Nez wrote:
Psychologists who wish to have one of their book
review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright
Psychology Review award should not submit book
review articles that review more than three books
at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright
Psychology Review will not publish a book review
article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read.
In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly
state that review articles that cover more than three
books at a time are considered too lengthy and
Which of the following statements represents an
assumption upon which the argument relies?
A) The book reviews articles that covers the most
books must be the lengthiest and most
B) If a book review article is published in the
Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will
Review award.
C) All articles published in the Boatwright
Psychology Review must be limited to a certain
length specified by the editors.
D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors
generally prefer book review articles that cover one
book rather than books.
E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology
Review award, a psychologist's book review article
must be published in the Boatwright Psychology
Review.

M'aidez!
I'll give OA later.

hi,
the PARA says that psycholofists should not submit reviews that cover more than 3 books to be considered for nomination for a prize, as mor ethan 3 are considered lengthy and cumbersome to read..

lets see the choices

A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.
Very tempting BUT it is too extreme. Nowhere it is mentioned MORE the books, MORE the length and cumbersome article...

B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.
It is nominated and not necessary that it will win

C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.
There is nothing in the para that suggests that this is an assumption

D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.
Again we can say that they in all likelihood do not prefer more than 3 but there is no comparison between one and two to three books..

E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.
CORRECT. But it may not be directly mentioned but then that is why it is assumption..
the following two lines point towards this assumption. see the highlighted portion

1)Psychologists who wish to haveone of their book review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time.
2)This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review articleif it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read.
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 319
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 06:41
The assumption is that a 3-book review must be cumbersome.

Well I now understand why A is wrong.

But E is what I call a lifesize assumption.

The assumption comes from what you already know in real life about publishing and review.

For example I had to go read articles on awaiting trials and "paroles" to enable me understand questions on prison related topics.

Topics on economics/finance are quite familiar since that was my major.

I know about publishing as well, having published severally, but my major problem in this is the apparent inconsistency in GMAC's assumption questions.

Sometimes it tells you "This is out of scope" when you bring assumption stemming from real life knowledge on a lifesize question.

But I guess it all boils down to knowing the mind of the test giver and also knowing it as per qurstion. There is established method of reasoning GMAC tests.

I think GMAC assumes that come what may, any person/outfit would prefer action that benefits it and avoid those that hurts it.

Posted from my mobile device
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7098
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 06:51
1
Nez wrote:
The assumption is that a 3-book review must be cumbersome.

Well I now understand why A is wrong.

But E is what I call a lifesize assumption.

The assumption comes from what you already know in real life about publishing and review.

For example I had to go read articles on awaiting trials and "paroles" to enable me understand questions on prison related topics.

Topics on economics/finance are quite familiar since that was my major.

I know about publishing as well, having published severally, but my major problem in this is the apparent inconsistency in GMAC's assumption questions.

Sometimes it tells you "This is out of scope" when you bring assumption stemming from real life knowledge on a lifesize question.

But I guess it all boils down to knowing the mind of the test giver and also knowing it as per qurstion. There is established method of reasoning GMAC tests.

I think GMAC assumes that come what may, any person/outfit would prefer action that benefits it and avoid those that hurts it.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Nez,
Even if I do not know anything about the publishing and nomination for awards, it can be interpreted and E can be choosen..

look at the sentences

1)Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time.
So if some one wants his book to be nominated for BPR award should not exceed some limit... WHY? now point 2 comes in--
2)This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review articleif it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read.
this tells us that BPR will not publish that article..

WHAT is the missing link in above two points? It is the assumption given by E

combine TWO, the wish of psychologist will come true ONLY if BPR publishes article
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2015
Posts: 77
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 07:17
I got stumped here and chose A. I thought this is a very good assumption, as the argument says that Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article, if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. Subsequently, it says that the review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

So if we combine this information, then the assumptions clearly is that the length and the cumbersomeness of review articles is considered to be directly proportional to the number of books reviewed in that review article. This is what the first option also says.

Actually if we negate this option, in other words, if the book reviews article that covers the most books, is not the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read, then in that case the entire directive of Boatwright Psychology Review, to not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time, falls apart.

So basically if we negate option A, then it is possible that the review article that reviews only one book is actually more lengthy and cumbersome, than is a review article that reviews three books at a time; and if that's the case, then the entire submission guideline of Boatwright Psychology Review is meaningless.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7098
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 07:40
PrijitDebnath wrote:
I got stumped here and chose A. I thought this is a very good assumption, as the argument says that Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article, if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. Subsequently, it says that the review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

So if we combine this information, then the assumptions clearly is that the length and the cumbersomeness of review articles is considered to be directly proportional to the number of books reviewed in that review article. This is what the first option also says.

Actually if we negate this option, in other words, if the book reviews article that covers the most books, is not the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read, then in that case the entire directive of Boatwright Psychology Review, to not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time, falls apart.

So basically if we negate option A, then it is possible that the review article that reviews only one book is actually more lengthy and cumbersome, than is a review article that reviews three books at a time; and if that's the case, then the entire submission guideline of Boatwright Psychology Review is meaningless.

Hi,
A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read...
the words are too extreme lengthiest and most cumbersome..
It means 1<2<3<4<5<6 books reviews..
it cannot be so simple that a 5 books review article cannot be > 6 books review article ..

It is very important to read the wordings..
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 319
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 09:03
Thanks chetan
the trouble with A is the use of superlatives.
Their is a big shift from comparative to superlative.
The stimulus is just comparative.

Posted from my mobile device
Moderator
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 1091
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 09:39
A) >3 books MEANS lengthy and cumbersome
B) lengthy and cumbersome MEANS not publish
c) not publish MEANS not nominated

A + B + C

">3 books MEANS not nominated." this is nothing but "NOMINATED means NOT >3 books", which is our conclusion.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
Project PS Butler - https://gmatclub.com/forum/project-ps-butler-practice-everyday-280904.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Moderator
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 1091
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 09:50
Nez wrote:
Thanks chetan
the trouble with A is the use of superlatives.
Their is a big shift from comparative to superlative.
The stimulus is just comparative.

Posted from my mobile device

Strong words used in a choice only make me go back to argument and confirm rather than straight away eliminating it.

A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

In argument it is mentioned:
"the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read."

why A is wrong:
1. if something is considered to be true then it does not mean it MUST be true.

2. too lengthy and cumbersome to read does not mean MOST cumbersome to read.

_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
Project PS Butler - https://gmatclub.com/forum/project-ps-butler-practice-everyday-280904.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2015
Posts: 77
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 20:19
Thanks chetan2u and HKD1710.

So, based upon your comments, I would say that if A was the following, it would have been correct:

A) The book reviews articles that cover more books must be the lengthy and cumbersome to read.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 319
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2016, 02:38
Hi PrijitDebnath

No.
But below is right.

The book review that cover more than 3 books MUST be more lengthy to read than the book review that does NOT cover more than 3 books.

Keep it close or you run off track.

Your statements include comparison with any number of review.
The stimulus didn't tell us about that. so we don't know.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior CR Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1376
Location: Viet Nam
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2017, 08:02
sananoor wrote:
Psychologists who wish to have one of their book reviews nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the argument above depends?

(A) The books review article that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.
No information mentioned about the conditions that consider any book the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

(B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.
No information mentioned that that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright. Rather, it will be nnominated for the award.

(C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.
Actually, there is no information mentioned about that certain length. Just said that any article that covers more than 3 books will be considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

(D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than two books.
No information mentioned that the Boatwright Psychology Review editors prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than two books. The argument just mentioned that the Boatwright Psychology Review editors won't published any book review articles that cover more than three books.

(E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.
Correct. This choice fills the missing link between two facts: the article is nominated for the award and the article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2016
Posts: 13
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2017, 08:31
Only E fills in the gap and connects the published review to award.
B on the other hand goes to an extreme by claiming published review wins the award
Other options seem unrelated.

Sent from my C6902 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 369
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2017, 08:36
sananoor wrote:
Psychologists who wish to have one of their book reviews nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the argument above depends?

(A) The books review article that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.
(B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.
(C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.
(D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than two books.
(E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.

Story - Psychs who want their book reviews to be nominated for BPR should NOT submit articles with more than 3 book reviews. Because, editors find these articles lengthy and cumbersome to read. Editors state something XXXXXX.

A - This makes a generalised statement. OUT.
B - We're only talking about nominations in the argument. OUT.
C - This is explicitly stated in the argument. OUT
D - This cannot be the assumption the argument depends on, as it states the editors like shorter reviews. 1, or 2 articles long isn't mentioned and isn't really relevant. OUT
E - Yes, the author does assume that you can only get nominated for BPR if you get your article published in the magazine, and that's why he/she goes at length on why the psychs should follow the editors wishes.

_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 51072
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2018, 02:30
Ekland wrote:
Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the argument relies?

A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.

C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.

D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.

E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The author concludes that psychologists who want their work to be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award should only submit articles containing reviews on three or fewer books. The evidence follows: the Boatwright Psychology Review basically will not publish any book review article that reviews more than three books. Look back over the conclusion and evidence, and you'll realize that they aren't really talking about the same thing. The conclusion is about what one should do in order to get his work nominated for the award, and the evidence is about what one should do in order to get his work published. That's a classic scope shift. The only way to make these two different subjects relate to one another is to assume that one must have a review article published in the Review in order to be eligible for the award. Otherwise the evidence about publication requirements would have no relevance to the conclusion about nomination requirements. (E) expresses this central assumption faithfully, tying the evidence concerning publishing to the conclusion concerning nominations.

An 800 test taker knows that the logical gap that results from a scope shift can often be bridged by an assumption.

(A) While the stimulus suggests that articles covering more books are longer, it nowhere suggests that this proportional relationship carries out to the extremes. What makes for the longest articles isn't central to the evidence and conclusion, and hence need not be assumed in order for this argument to work.

(B) overstates the link between the two subjects. The argument in the stimulus assumes that publication is necessary for a book to be nominated, while (B) says that publication guarantees that a book will win the award. The argument doesn't concern itself with which book might win the award, so (B) isn't directly relevant to it.

(C) is too broad to be necessary here. The argument concerns book review articles, which do come with certain length restrictions. But (C) deals with all articles, and we don't know nor do we really care anything about articles besides book reviews that Boatwright may contain (editorials, feature articles, etc.). These may or may not have length restrictions, but this particular argument doesn't depend on this issue.

(D) makes an irrelevant distinction that doesn't directly pertain to the central issue: what must be done with an article before it can be nominated for the prestigious award. One book and two books are both on the acceptable side of the length restriction—no distinction between them need be assumed here.
_________________
Re: Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for &nbs [#permalink] 03 Aug 2018, 02:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by