It is currently 26 Jun 2017, 17:53

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 399

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2008, 04:18
3
KUDOS
12
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:18) correct 50% (01:41) wrong based on 473 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Radio Stations with radio data system (RDS) technolodgy broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

(C) Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.

(D) In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

(E) The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 541

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2008, 22:41
Golden rule of assumption question - apply negation and the option should go against the conclusion.

Try B : In 1996 Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station did not had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

It means there were some people, with RDS radio set, living in areas with no RDS listening area. when the radio station increased from X to Y, there are high chances thst these people would have come in listening areas and number of people listening to RDS would have increased. But as per question it dint happen.

Manager
Status: Waiting to hear from University of Texas at Austin
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 76
Location: Changchun, China
Schools: University of Texas at Austin, Michigan State

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2010, 18:47
6
KUDOS
At first I picked E, but now I understand why A is correct.

Based on the question we know RDS-reception requires 3 things:
1) Station must send RDS info with signal
2) Receiving radio must be able to decode RDS information

Also we know:
the number of stations grew from 250 to 600
the number of receivers stayed the same

The conclusion is "..the number of verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. "

In this problem we must support this conclusion (in my opinion a poor one) with a key assumption.

Choice A is basically saying the additional RDS stations are in the same broadcast area as the previous RDS stations.

I have a diagram to illustrate a situation without assumption A.

Attachment:

Verdland.JPG [ 19.28 KiB | Viewed 12584 times ]

As you can see in the drawing, an additional station in a different area of Verdland could increase the number of people receiving the RDS information.

For anyone wondering why the broadcast area for the blue station is not a circle, the broadcast tower is in a deep valley.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 1

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2010, 18:57
TallJTinChina wrote:
At first I picked E, but now I understand why A is correct.

Based on the question we know RDS-reception requires 3 things:
1) Station must send RDS info with signal
2) Receiving radio must be able to decode RDS information

Also we know:
the number of stations grew from 250 to 600
the number of receivers stayed the same

The conclusion is "..the number of verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. "

In this problem we must support this conclusion (in my opinion a poor one) with a key assumption.

Choice A is basically saying the additional RDS stations are in the same broadcast area as the previous RDS stations.

I have a diagram to illustrate a situation without assumption A.

Attachment:
Verdland.JPG

As you can see in the drawing, an additional station in a different area of Verdland could increase the number of people receiving the RDS information.

For anyone wondering why the broadcast area for the blue station is not a circle, the broadcast tower is in a deep valley.
Manager
Status: Waiting to hear from University of Texas at Austin
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 76
Location: Changchun, China
Schools: University of Texas at Austin, Michigan State

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2010, 20:39
jparraos wrote:
why not C?

My guess is the official guide would call C outside the argument.

C is an assumption that is not key to the argument. If we assume the opposite:

Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does decrease the station's listening area.

The conclusion still stands "..the number of verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly."

In fact if the opposite of C was true, this would give support to the conclusion "....number of verdlanders did not increase significantly." (If adding RDS capability decreased listening area then the number of verdlanders who have access to RDS could actually decrease.)

When the conclusion is stated "did not" you end up with A or B outcome.

In this case we have:
A: the number receiving RDS did not increase significantly
or
B: the number receiving RDS did increase significantly

A would include:
*a significant decrease
*a minor increase
*a constant level
*a minor decrease

As I stated in my other post this is a very weak conclusion. Using "...probably not increase significantly" reminds me of a politician.

Such as: "Good news, the growth in the unemployment rate was not as large as expected."
Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 408
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2010, 21:07
1
KUDOS
suyashjhawar wrote:
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

b)Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.
c)Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
d)In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.
e)The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

Answer is C. Here is why?

A -- This statement only talks about the year 1996 and there is no comparison with the year 1994 (the time when the number of RDS stations increased). Hence this is ruled out.

B -- Not in scope.

C -- Strong candidate since this options rules out/significantly reduces the possibility of the newly added RDS radio stations having greater reach.

D -- Irrelevant. (Also is very confusing)

E -- Again only one of the year is noted without any clear comparative analysis being brought forth between 1994 and 1996.

Hence answer is C. Hope my reasoning is sound.
_________________

Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog

Ms. Big Fat Panda
Status: Three Down.
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1918
Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2010, 21:51

RDS Stations: Increase
This means: Number of people receiving special programs didn't increase.

If the stations increased but the radios stayed the same, then the stations must be broadcasting to the same people who had the radios before. So the RDS broadcasts in new places is comparatively low.

suyashjhawar wrote:
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a)In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS. Not given. This is not a NECESSARY condition.
c)Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations. This is directly in line with what we expect.
d)In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994. Out-of-Scope again.
e)The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming. Irrelevant.
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1326

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 20:08
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
By POE A and D prevail.

Using Negation -

D : In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS received any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

helps to explain why the RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same. Hence nullified as it should have wakened the conclusion "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly", but it dosen't.

So, A win's.

IMO A.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 22:08
1
KUDOS
I believe D is straight no ! In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS
- this means the group it is considering is wrong / unrepresentative. It is imperative to have a correct receiver. That is the assumption for the things to work.

amit2k9 wrote:
By POE A and D prevail.

Using Negation -

D : In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS received any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

helps to explain why the RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same. Hence nullified as it should have wakened the conclusion "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly", but it dosen't.

So, A win's.

IMO A.

_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 311

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 14:08
Trick to assumption questions - try to link words and derive a assumption. Of course the negation technique is always there to back-up!
Manager
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 67
Location: Astoria, NYC

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 15:13
1
KUDOS

I missed the biggest clue for this one "since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994," the number stayed the same...Given
so basically lets take the case no one in Verland upgraded to RDS....so option A furthers this idea and says that few if any of RDS stations broadcast to other towns in hopes of an increase in RDS numbers also.....hence it stayed the same.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7443
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 15:28
9
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
piyushagarwal wrote:
I am not at all able to make out what A want to say..

Since this questions seems to have confused people, let's try to break it down.

Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.
c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.
d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.
e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

Assumption question: Find the conclusion. Find out which answer option is essential for the condition to be true.

Premises:
-Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600.
- the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994

Conclusion:the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Even though new RDS radio stations have been set up, since the number of radios with RDS feature is same in 1996 as in 1994, the author is concluding that the same number of people are receiving RDS programs.

a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

So for his conclusion to be true, the author is assuming that RDS radio stations that began after 1994 did not broadcast to people who were unreachable previously. Hence answer A.

None of the other choices qualify as an assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 238
Concentration: Healthcare, General Management

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2010, 00:43
a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7443
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2010, 03:47
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Samwong wrote:
a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?

There is a distinction between:
Few - Very few
A few - Some
Few of my friends will go to the dance. (means very few or almost none of them will go)
A few of my friends will go to the dance. (means some of my friends will go)

So I would consider 'Few if any' to mean 1 or 2 if any at all... That number may not have enough impact to make a difference.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Status: what we want to do, do it as soon as possible
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Vietnam
WE 1: 5.0

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 09:49
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Samwong wrote:
a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?

There is a distinction between:
Few - Very few
A few - Some
Few of my friends will go to the dance. (means very few or almost none of them will go)
A few of my friends will go to the dance. (means some of my friends will go)

So I would consider 'Few if any' to mean 1 or 2 if any at all... That number may not have enough impact to make a difference.

hi Karishma,
I am confused between A and D. I chose D because i thought about the case that people who dont have the RDS-equipped radios still can have chance to listen to programs brocasted by RDS radio stations (maybe through other people's RDS equipped radios), the situation which weaken the conclusion that "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. "
_________________

Consider giving me kudos if you find my explanations helpful so i can learn how to express ideas to people more understandable.

Manager
Status: I am Midnight's Child !
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Posts: 142
WE 1: Software Design and Development

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 12:15
Hi Karishma / All others,
Code:
d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

I chose D because otherwise people could just get a programming and their radios will start receiving RDS, thus increasing the number of people getting the special program. That way, the entire argument breaks down.

Please tell me if there is a glitch in my reasoning.
_________________

Argument : If you love long trips, you love the GMAT.
Conclusion : GMAT is long journey.

What does the author assume ?
Assumption : A long journey is a long trip.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7443
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 19:47
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
MICKEYXITIN wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Samwong wrote:
a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

Thanks for the explanation. I also have trouble understanding the wording in answer choice A.

Can "Few if any" equal to "there maybe some"?

If there are some RDS radio stations that did broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations, doesn't it weaken this answer choice?

There is a distinction between:
Few - Very few
A few - Some
Few of my friends will go to the dance. (means very few or almost none of them will go)
A few of my friends will go to the dance. (means some of my friends will go)

So I would consider 'Few if any' to mean 1 or 2 if any at all... That number may not have enough impact to make a difference.

hi Karishma,
I am confused between A and D. I chose D because i thought about the case that people who dont have the RDS-equipped radios still can have chance to listen to programs brocasted by RDS radio stations (maybe through other people's RDS equipped radios), the situation which weaken the conclusion that "the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. "

The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?)
The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then may not have changed. So the argument could still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.

(At Veritas, we call this method Assumption Negation Technique (ANT). Assumption is something which needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. That is why it is called an assumption. If an option is negated and the conclusion could still hold, it is not an assumption)

On the other hand, if we negate option (A) and say that some RDS radio stations started broadcasting in areas which were not previously reached by RDS but where people owned RDS equipped radios, then the number of people receiving RDS increases in 1996 and the conclusion does not hold. Hence option (A) is the assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Last edited by VeritasPrepKarishma on 09 Jan 2011, 19:53, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7443
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 19:51
Hi Karishma / All others,
Code:
d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

I chose D because otherwise people could just get a programming and their radios will start receiving RDS, thus increasing the number of people getting the special program. That way, the entire argument breaks down.

Please tell me if there is a glitch in my reasoning.

I am sorry maddy2u but I am not very sure what you mean. If the radios are not equipped with RDS, how could they get RDS programming? Do you mean using someone else's radio? Then my explanation above may help. If you mean that they could kind of install a software that supports reception of RDS on their radios (just taking a shot here!) or something, they could have done the same in 1994. How do you prove that the number of people receiving RDS programming has changed from 1994 to 1996? Only if you do that can you break the argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Status: what we want to do, do it as soon as possible
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Vietnam
WE 1: 5.0

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 22:31
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
MICKEYXITIN wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

The question asks for an assumption. (i.e. what is necessarily true to make the conclusion true?)
The gist of the argument is that since no. of radios is about the same, number of people receiving the RDS programming is also the same.

Option D - In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

- Even if people without RDS equipped radios could access RDS programming (say on neighbor's RDS radio) in 1996, they could have done the same in 1994 as well. They could have received RDS programs from existing radio stations (using neighbors radio). The number of people receiving the programming then may not have changed. So the argument could still hold even if option (D) is false. It is not necessary for it to be true for the argument to be true. Then option (D) is not an assumption.

(At Veritas, we call this method Assumption Negation Technique (ANT). Assumption is something which needs to be true for the conclusion to be true. That is why it is called an assumption. If an option is negated and the conclusion could still hold, it is not an assumption)

On the other hand, if we negate option (A) and say that some RDS radio stations started broadcasting in areas which were not previously reached by RDS but where people owned RDS equipped radios, then the number of people receiving RDS increases in 1996 and the conclusion does not hold. Hence option (A) is the assumption.

Thank you very much Karishma. Your explanation is convincing. Now i understand why D is inccorect now. hope i can learn the way you reason to eliminate incorrect answers of other assumption questions should any chance ever rise.
_________________

Consider giving me kudos if you find my explanations helpful so i can learn how to express ideas to people more understandable.

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2010
Posts: 21

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2011, 07:23
pdarun wrote:
I chose B, am still battling to understand why not B.
As explained in an earlier post if B is not true, then the conclusion in the passage falls apart. Reason enough to select B!

I think B is incorrect because of the date. It says that in 1996, Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

Even if this is true, it can still mean that from 1994 to 1996, Verdlanders with RDS radios moved in large numbers from an area that was not within range of stations to an area that was. This would obviously greatly increase the number of people receiving the special programming.

Only A can be correct here. It's all about the radio stations. It basically says that the stations never reached many more customers. That's exactly what the conclusion is.

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 54 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology 0 28 Aug 2015, 06:04
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology 0 03 Jun 2017, 23:24
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology 0 02 Sep 2016, 23:36
Radio Stations with radio data system (RDS) technolodgy 0 12 Aug 2016, 07:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by