Last visit was: 18 May 2026, 04:56 It is currently 18 May 2026, 04:56
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
805+ (Hard)|   Conclusion|   Inference|      
avatar
rsaahil90
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Last visit: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 25
Schools: NUS '20
Schools: NUS '20
Posts: 23
Kudos: 19
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 01 Dec 2015, 03:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello Mike

Thank you for the detailed explanation - I would still say that I am not fully convinced by the "every intelligent person" ideology. I am still 25 and had only had exposure to so many sciences and hence knowledge for me to be in the intelligent set. My firm belief when I step in for my GMAT would be to read the question stem and try to get whatever I can get out of it (not applying anything I personally know about the topic)

Cheers again for the explanation!
Saahil


mikemcgarry
rsaahil90
Hello Mike

I am still not able to digest this logic - Given that we are being asked for a conclusion, we are assuming a lot of things here:
1. The virus is passive. We don't know as to whether the vaccine terminated the virus or rendered it passive only
2. Passive virus cannot become active (in one individual and spread in adults) and hence can only affect children. For e.g. if instead of children in option A, if we would have said older population (may be they lost immunity), will this option still be a correct one

In what I've learned so far for conclusion questions --> Whatever exists in the stem is truth in entirety and hence I am skeptical on the reasoning you have provided.

Would be happy to hear from you.

Thanks
Saahil
Dear rsaahil90,
I'm happy to help. :-) I think, in part, the problem is that you don't understand the basics of vaccines and viruses.

Right now, in all likelihood, you and I and most of the people we know have the polio virus in our bodies. We got the virus sometime during our lives, but because we were fortunate to get the polio vaccine when we were young, our immune system is educated about how to fight the polio virus, so we never developed any of the symptoms of polio. You see, a vaccine does not terminate a virus: a vaccine does nothing directly to the virus itself. The job of a vaccine is to educate the human immune system, as it were to "teach" the immune system how to fight a disease, so that we don't have to go through having the disease. Every vaccine you and I have received has taught out how to fight those particular viruses (polio, mumps, measles, diphtheria, etc.) In all likelihood, we have encountered all these virus during our lives and may carry these viruses in our body. Because our immune systems know how to fight these diseases, we don't get these diseases, but the viruses are there, and theoretically, at any time we could infect an unvaccinated person, if we ever were to encounter one.
So far as I know, the immunity that one gets from vaccines does not diminish in old age---old folks have other immune problems, but I have never heard of an old person getting polio or mumps or measles or etc. after they had been vaccinated in youth.
The word "passive" in this context is not a medical term: I was simply trying to describe the situation of these viruses in our bodies: they are present but they don't make us sick. Once again, if the virus is present, then even though I am not sick, I could be carrying it and could infect someone else, if that other person had not been vaccinated.

Once again, all this is not specialized knowledge. The details of exactly how a vaccine works, exactly how vaccines are manufactured, the biochemistry of the immune system's response to them---all that is specialized biological knowledge. The overview I have given, by contrast, is something that every intelligent person should know. Every intelligent person should know that antibiotics kill bacteria but have zero effect on viruses. Similarly, everyone should know that a vaccine enhances the human immune system, enabling the immune system to fight a virus, but the vaccine itself does zero to the virus. No medicine and no drug can fight a virus: the most drugs can do is manage symptoms. If a virus is in, say a pot of water, we can destroy the virus by boiling the water. We can destroy virus outside the body by heat or chemical means, but a virus inside the body is considerably harder to fight. Basically, the only thing on Earth that we know that can fight and destroy a virus inside us is the human immune system itself, and vaccines brilliantly harness this power of the immune system to fight particular viruses. Once again, all this is in the realm that every intelligent person should know, and this "background knowledge" is crucial for understanding GMAT CR questions.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more
User avatar
arhumsid
User avatar
Joined: 04 May 2014
Last visit: 14 Feb 2023
Posts: 192
Own Kudos:
728
Given Kudos: 141
Status:One Last Shot !!!
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '17 (D) IIMA  (D) LBS '19 NUS '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB '17 (D) IIMA  (D) LBS '19 NUS '19
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Posts: 192
Kudos: 728
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 06 Apr 2016, 19:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi mikemcgarry

(in line with what rsaahil90 and a few others brought up)

This question has led me into thinking about a very basics issue of GMAT CR- 'Till what extent can we bring in our real world knowledge while answering a CR question??'

This question can be answered correctly even if we ignore 90% of the info that is given in the passage and consider only the portion of it that says - 'state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine'. And, didnt we actually answer it this way?? This was only possible because we know from the real world that if a vaccine is discontinued, those who never received it would be at risk.

U see, most part of the discussion on this thread has been dealing with 'real world knowledge', for instance, the discussion on 'Smallpox'. The moment i see something other than the question itself being discussed (vaccinations, in this case), and it makes me feel 'Thank God! we'r finally into the real world now... but wait, my test isnt done yet and i'm drifting away from the high-endurance-demanding-CR-mindset :)'

Please help me here. Are we expected to have and apply this knowledge about vaccination?

BTW, how do I answer this question if I am not aware that 'Vaccination is given at an early age'?

Thanks!
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,474
Own Kudos:
30,919
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,474
Kudos: 30,919
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 08 Apr 2016, 10:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
arhumsid
Hi mikemcgarry

(in line with what rsaahil90 and a few others brought up)

This question has led me into thinking about a very basics issue of GMAT CR- 'Till what extent can we bring in our real world knowledge while answering a CR question??'

This question can be answered correctly even if we ignore 90% of the info that is given in the passage and consider only the portion of it that says - 'state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine'. And, didnt we actually answer it this way?? This was only possible because we know from the real world that if a vaccine is discontinued, those who never received it would be at risk.

U see, most part of the discussion on this thread has been dealing with 'real world knowledge', for instance, the discussion on 'Smallpox'. The moment i see something other than the question itself being discussed (vaccinations, in this case), and it makes me feel 'Thank God! we'r finally into the real world now... but wait, my test isnt done yet and i'm drifting away from the high-endurance-demanding-CR-mindset :)'

Please help me here. Are we expected to have and apply this knowledge about vaccination?

BTW, how do I answer this question if I am not aware that 'Vaccination is given at an early age'?

Thanks!
Show more
Dear arhumsid
i'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, the GMAT is designed to prepare you for business school, which in turn is designed to prepare you for the business world. If you are not conversant in commonly known facts about the real world, you will flounder in the business world. If B-school adcom senses that you don't have a keen understanding of basic real world issues, you will not be an attractive candidate even if you have an 800 on the GMAT. This is about much much more than performance on the GMAT CR.

If you make a dichotomy between CR-intelligence and real-world intelligence, you do not truly understand the nature of the CR. It's not about leaving one way of thinking and drawing on a completely different way of thinking. Instead, it's about developing an intelligence in which logic and real-world instincts function seamlessly.

Of course, you do not need to be an expert about vaccines. You do not need to know their history, their biological mechanism. You just need to have the basic idea: almost everyone in the modern world gets vaccines in infancy. Parents regularly do this for their kids. Why? What does getting a vaccine do? What would happen if one didn't get it?

Think about it. Think about any activity that over 90% of the population does, and think about the motivations and economics of that. Entertainment is a huge industry: how much money is spent and where does the money go? Lots of people drive: how does registering a car work? how does a drivers license work? From whence does the food in your grocery store come? Who paves the roads and who pays those people to do so? Where does the water in your house come from, and where does the waste water go? Part of preparing for the GMAT and for business school involves developing a curiosity about the economic systems all around us. You want to go to business school and be an expert in business? Well, business is happening everyday all around you. Money is being exchanged for hundreds of different reasons. Part of understanding business means getting curious about all that.

You can learn a lot simply by reading the business news: the WSJ, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, etc. You can also learn a lot by talking to people who are 20-30 years older than you: what are their motivations and concerns? What insights can they provide simply from their lived experience?

Will you see a question on the GMAT about vaccines? Probably not. Will you see a CR question that somehow involves some real-world economic activity that happens in your immediate environment every day? Quite likely. The more you have instincts for that real-world activity, the easier the CR question will be for you.

I will suggest this blog:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge
The links at the end of that article provide a kind of primer about different categories of real world knowledge that could be helpful on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
avatar
ramsahoo
avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Last visit: 23 Jan 2018
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
2
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19 NUS '20 NTU '19
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.7
Schools: ISB '19 NUS '20 NTU '19
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
Posts: 13
Kudos: 2
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 29 Sep 2017, 00:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
jaituteja
Hi Mike,

How can we be so sure that the disease will definitely arrive for young children. The word "will" is very strong in option A.

Thanks, Jai
Dear Jai,
I'm happy to respond. :-)
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels.

Yes, the word "will" is a strong word, but we absolutely know this to be the case. You see, we know that Tacitus’ Disease is "a highly infectious virus," which means people get it very easily. It appears that the only reason Tacitus’ Disease hasn't be active for years is that the entire population has been vaccinated. Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population. If the authorities stop the vaccinations, then the children born after that time will be without any protection against this highly infectious disease. We can't say for sure that the children will get the disease, but it would seem that the probability is very high. We can say for sure that they are at risk. Any time someone is exposed to any danger without sufficient protection, by definition, they are "at risk." Infectious disease, no vaccination --- that's "at risk."

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

Isnt it a big assumption?

Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population.

Suppose I dont belong to any medical profession how do i know that people can carry virus even after vaccination? question stem doesn't say this.
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,474
Own Kudos:
30,919
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,474
Kudos: 30,919
 [1]
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 30 Sep 2017, 14:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ramsahoo
Isnt it a big assumption?

Keep in mind, people who are vaccinated can carry the virus, but they simply don't get sick from it. In all likelihood, the vast majority of members of this population are passive carriers of the virus, so in all likelihood, the virus is still present in the population.

Suppose I dont belong to any medical profession how do i know that people can carry virus even after vaccination? question stem doesn't say this.
Show more
Dear ramsahoo,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, many students think that the only information they need is what exists in the prompt. This is a big misconception about the GMAT CR. You don't need to have detailed specialized knowledge, but you absolutely need to have a basic appreciation for real world facts, especially facts about the business world. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge
Think about it. The GMAT CR is about preparing you for the business world, because executives have to evaluate arguments all the time. If you read an article or hear a presentation saying, for example, that X is a good thing, you are not simply responsible for what the article or presentation says. As a business executive, you will have to have an appreciation of the larger forces at work in the market, to decide how to evaluate that argument.

For this question, you don't need to have a medical student's understanding of the mechanisms of vaccines. Think about it. You probably have gotten many vaccines when you were young. Probably so did everyone else that you know. Get curious. What have you and everyone else gotten? How do it work? Why do people use vaccines? Read a Wikipedia article about it. Talk to someone who has more knowledge than you. Do whatever you can to learn about the world around you.

The mindset of mediocrity says, "I didn't know I was responsible to know that." The mindset of excellence is all about learning as much as possible about the world around us. If you have a rich understanding of the real world and of the business world, you will be very successful in GMAT CR, in B school, and in your career.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
aragonn
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Last visit: 30 Sep 2019
Posts: 1,170
Own Kudos:
5,949
Given Kudos: 416
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 1,170
Kudos: 5,949
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 09 Aug 2018, 19:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Official Explanation


The credited answer is (A). We know the citizenry currently is immune because of the vaccine. If they stop immunizing folks, the unvaccinated ones, i.e. the young children, would be vulnerable to this "highly infectious" diseases. We don't know for sure that they will definitely get Tacitus' Diseases, but we certainly know that their unvaccinated immune systems would be "at risk" for it. This is a well-supported conclusion.

Choice (B) is tempting. We know the countries that export meat & produce to this state have many of these diseases. It is suggested that these imports could constitute a vector for Tacitus' disease into the state. We don't know whether diseases could be introduced through these imports, but even if they are, there's no reason to conclude meats are unrefrigerated. Unrefrigerated meat spoils very quickly, which suggest that it never could be sold once it arrived here. Furthermore, refrigerator doesn't destroy viruses --- they can simply remain dormant until they thaw. We have no grounds for concluding this. (B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) is unsubstantiated: we have no way to compare the infection rates. (C) is incorrect.

Choice (D) might be tempting, but we just don't know. The whole population has been immune to Tacitus' disease for years, because they all have been vaccinated. We don't know by what pathways the Tacitus's disease virus might be entering the population. We have no reason to assume this. (D) is incorrect.

Choice (E) is not a solid conclusion. We know that it cost something for the state hospitals to provide the Tacitus' disease vaccine. Was this cost high? Did it place an economic burden on the state health services? We don't know. We have no grounds for drawing this specific conclusion. (E) is incorrect.
User avatar
gullyboy09
User avatar
Joined: 13 Oct 2025
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 191
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 42
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 191
Kudos: 10
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 17 Apr 2026, 09:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi MartyMurray, can you please help with this question? I spent good 5 minutes on this question but couldn't pick any option. Now when I'm going through various explanations, it makes a bit sense to me, but I am still not very sure if we can chose option A as the answer. Maybe best of all, but if I look at the option standalone, it would be difficult to chose it.

My first issue is reason being given is new borns after the decommissioning of vaccination drive won't be able to get vaccine and they will be at risk, and example of Polio was stated in many explanations. But now when I see around, polio vaccine is not being given to anyone, I don't know the details but it might be possible we are genetically adapted for such virus attack. Situation with Tacitus might be like polio or any other disease where we kept giving vaccination after there was no or a very rare case was observed to make sure we are done with it completely, and eventually after seeing that now its been a while we don't see anything, let's stop it.

Second, it is also possible that this Tacitus disease does not affect children at all. (Highly infectious might be in adults with age greater than 30), and to say children "will" be at risk is a bit of stretch.

Third, even if I let everything above go, and put option A as conclusion in the end of the passage, as below.

Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels. Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease.

Isn't it a logical flaw? Jumping from what happened to young children during Salicetiococcus, and using it to make a conclusion for Tacitus where no similarity between two is given.

I am not very sure about this "will" here.
User avatar
guddo
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 1,183
Own Kudos:
11,879
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 1,183
Kudos: 11,879
 [1]
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 17 Apr 2026, 12:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’ Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the vaccines at the previous levels.

The public health official’s statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

The official’s point is that zero recent cases do not mean zero risk. Because the state imports food from places with high disease incidence, a disease can be reintroduced. The Salicetiococcus example is used to show that reducing vaccination can be followed by an outbreak.

(A) Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease.

This is the best supported choice. The official argues that stopping vaccination does not mean citizens are safe, and the example of a later outbreak among young children supports the idea that at least some people, including young children, remain at risk if vaccination is reduced.

(B) Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate refrigeration during the shipping process.

Nothing in the passage mentions refrigeration.

(C) Tacitus’ Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.

We are not given any comparison of fatality rates.

(D) No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants that could lead to either Tacitus’ Disease or Salicetiococcus.

The passage says nothing like this.

(E) The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus’ Disease vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.

The passage says hospitals cut costs, but it does not say the burden was undue.

Answer: (A)
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 18 May 2026
Posts: 1,928
Own Kudos:
7,283
 [2]
Given Kudos: 218
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,928
Kudos: 7,283
 [2]
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 18 Apr 2026, 08:39
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gullyboy09
Hi MartyMurray, can you please help with this question? I spent good 5 minutes on this question but couldn't pick any option. Now when I'm going through various explanations, it makes a bit sense to me, but I am still not very sure if we can chose option A as the answer. Maybe best of all, but if I look at the option standalone, it would be difficult to chose it.
Show more
The construction of this question may not be ideal in that the passage isn't really structured to support a conclusion about what "will" happen. Rather, the passage is more directed at indicating that discontinuing administration of the vaccine may not be a good idea because of possible results.

At the same time, we can still get this question correct because it's not a "must be true" question. Rather, it's a question about what conclusion is "best" supported. So, a reasonable conclusion that logically follows from what the passage says will be the correct answer even if that conclusion does not necessarily have to be true given what the passage says.

Thus, (A) is clearly correct because the information provided about importation of meats and produce and what occurred with reduced use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines supports the conclusion that citizens of the state, including "young children," "will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease."

Hope that helps.
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
180
Given Kudos: 6,673
Location: India
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 695
Kudos: 180
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 18 Apr 2026, 23:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi MartyMurray
Thanks for the great explanation like always.

When I attempted this question, I had rejected all 5 options and even (A) because of the word "will" which shows certainty and not a likelihood. Given that this question is about conclusion best supported and not an inference, in more such questions, can I take such a slight jump that "will" can be concluded?

MartyMurray

The construction of this question may not be ideal in that the passage isn't really structured to support a conclusion about what "will" happen. Rather, the passage is more directed at indicating that discontinuing administration of the vaccine may not be a good idea because of possible results.

At the same time, we can still get this question correct because it's not a "must be true" question. Rather, it's a question about what conclusion is "best" supported. So, a reasonable conclusion that logically follows from what the passage says will be the correct answer even if that conclusion does not necessarily have to be true given what the passage says.

Thus, (A) is clearly correct because the information provided about importation of meats and produce and what occurred with reduced use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines supports the conclusion that citizens of the state, including "young children," "will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease."

Hope that helps.
Show more
User avatar
MartyMurray
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 18 May 2026
Posts: 1,928
Own Kudos:
7,283
 [1]
Given Kudos: 218
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,928
Kudos: 7,283
 [1]
Public Health Official: After several years of vaccinating all of the 19 Apr 2026, 11:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan
Hi MartyMurray
Thanks for the great explanation like always.

When I attempted this question, I had rejected all 5 options and even (A) because of the word "will" which shows certainty and not a likelihood. Given that this question is about conclusion best supported and not an inference, in more such questions, can I take such a slight jump that "will" can be concluded?
Show more
Basically, you can, because the correct answer to a Conclusion question isn't something that necessarily has to be true given what the passage says. This one is on the edge though, I must say because the correct answer to a Conclusion question has to be supported relatively directly by something we can point to in the passage, and in this case, the correct answer only barely satisfies that requirement.

So, in general, we can go with an answer choice that uses "will" if the information in the passage clearly supports a conclusion about a future outcome even if that outcome is not assured.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7393 posts
AbhishekP220108
576 posts
bhanu29
368 posts