Last visit was: 30 Apr 2026, 17:52

It is currently 30 Apr 2026, 17:52

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Radio Stations with radio data system (RDS) technolodgy broadcast spec

1 2 3

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

05 Apr 2018, 02:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

prateek176

VeritasPrepKarishma

perfectstranger1

Dear Karishma ,

I will ask why D is wrong. D clearly states that if the owners have no way to get RDS information without RDS radios, then the conlusion is clear. What if there are other ways to obtain this information. I also choose A ,however I am little confused about that choice.

Gist of what D says: No RDS enabled radio meant no RDS program reception from later radio stations.
Conclusion of the argument: Number of people receiving RDS program did not increase significantly in 1996.

We have to consider whether D is an assumption. An assumption is a necessary missing premise. If the assumption is not true, the conclusion cannot be true. Let's negate the assumption. Then we will whether the conclusion can still hold.

Negated D: Even without RDS enabled radios, people could receive RDS programs from later radio stations.
Can the conclusion still hold true? Sure. If people can receive RDS programs without an RDS radio (e.g. at friends/neighbors etc) from later stations, these people could have received RDS programs in the same way before 1996 too. So number of people receiving RDS programs could have stayed the same. Since the conclusion can still hold even if D is negated, D is not an assumption.

VeritasPrepKarishma , mikemcgarry

Option D clearly means that we are negating the premise which i think isn't permissible in GMAT. Is my reasoning accurate?

Could you elaborate your reasoning? (D) does not negate any premise.

Prateek176

Joined: 12 Mar 2017

Last visit: 10 Jun 2021

Posts: 172

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 87

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, General Management

Schools: ISB '21 (D) IIMC MBAEx "21 (WL)

GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37 Verified score

GPA: 4

Schools: ISB '21 (D) IIMC MBAEx "21 (WL)

GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37 Verified score

Posts: 172

Kudos: 92

05 Apr 2018, 08:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

VeritasPrepKarishma

prateek176

VeritasPrepKarishma

VeritasPrepKarishma , mikemcgarry

Option D clearly means that we are negating the premise which i think isn't permissible in GMAT. Is my reasoning accurate?

Could you elaborate your reasoning? (D) does not negate any premise.

VeritasPrepKarishma

The argument has 3 premises:

Premises:
-Only radios with RDS feature can receive programs of Radio stations with RDS technology
-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

Option D is stating the obvious which is why i eliminated D. Sorry I phrased my question incorrectly.

But is this reasoning correct?

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

[1]

06 Apr 2018, 05:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

prateek176

The argument has 3 premises:

Premises:
-Only radios with RDS feature can receive programs of Radio stations with RDS technology
-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

Option D is stating the obvious which is why i eliminated D. Sorry I phrased my question incorrectly.

But is this reasoning correct?

Option (D) is not stating the obvious. The first premise and option (D) are different.
The first premise says that only those radios that have RDS capability can receive this special programming.
Option (D) says that PEOPLE who did not own RDS equipped radios in 1996 could not receive the special programming from the new stations.
People could access special programming through other people's radios too. So (D) is not the same as the first premise.

mallya12

Joined: 03 Dec 2018

Last visit: 14 Aug 2019

Posts: 109

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 93

Posts: 109

Kudos: 25

18 Mar 2019, 22:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

VeritasKarishma

pleezy

I was wondering. If C instead said:
Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not increase the station's listening area.

This would be a valid assumption too right?

No, that wouldn't be an assumption either.

Note that the point is not how far the RDS stations can transmit. Even if they transmit everywhere now, it is worthless if people do not have RDS equipped radios. Since no of people with RDS equipped radios has stayed the same, the author is saying that number of people receiving RDS programming is the same as before even if RDS stations cover more area now. So even if RDS tech increases the listening area, still number of people receiving the RDS programming could be the same since number of RDS equipped radios is the same. Hence the modified statement is not an assumption.
The assumption is that the new stations are not broadcasting in areas where RDS programming was not available before but people still had RDS equipped radios. If this were not true, people with RDS equipped radios would have started receiving RDS programming and the author's conclusion would be violated.

This argument has a parallel in the real world. In 1980s and early 1990s, most cities in India did not have FM channels but most radios came with FM because it became a standard feature - so that people living in cities with FM channels can access them.
Then in 1990s, many new FM channels came up in many cities. Did many more people buy FM equipped radios? Perhaps no. But did many *new* people start receiving FM channels? Sure. They already had FM equipped radios and FM broadcasting started in their cities so they started receiving it.

So when we say that since many new radios with RDS were not bought so people getting RDS did not increase, we are assuming that RDS programming did not start in areas which did not have it before but where people had RDS equipped radios.

VeritasKarishma

Say there are 100 people with RDS feature enabled Radios. In 1994 say only 50 out of 100 were able to receive the special program information. But in 1996 the radio stations with RDS technology increased.

According to option A these new stations didn't cover areas that weren't reached by radio stations in 1994. As the premise tells "number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994". Therefore even in 1996 only around 50 received the special program info.

If we consider this
"Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not increase the station's listening area."

If we negate this ""Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does increase the station's listening area." So now the stations will get more coverage and OUT of 100 more people will have access to these special program info. (i.e 50 +few more because the coverage is increased) .

Why is this answer choice wrong?

Thank You

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

19 Mar 2019, 02:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

mallya12

VeritasKarishma

pleezy

I was wondering. If C instead said:
Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not increase the station's listening area.

This would be a valid assumption too right?

I think you are talking about option (C) and why it cannot be the answer.
Do note that it is "Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area."
and hence its negation will be "Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does decrease the station's listening area."

Does this help bat out this option?

mallya12

Joined: 03 Dec 2018

Last visit: 14 Aug 2019

Posts: 109

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 93

Posts: 109

Kudos: 25

19 Mar 2019, 20:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

VeritasKarishma

No i do understand option choice C . But if there was an answer choice "Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not increase the station's listening area."

Would this be valid?

My Reasoning:

Say there are 100 people with RDS feature enabled Radios. In 1994 say only 50 out of 100 were able to receive the special program information. But in 1996 the radio stations with RDS technology increased.

According to option A these new stations didn't cover areas that weren't reached by radio stations in 1994. As the premise tells "number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994". Therefore even in 1996 only around 50 received the special program info.

If we consider this

"Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not increase the station's listening area."

If we negate this ""Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does increase the station's listening area." So now the stations will get more coverage and OUT of 100 more people will have access to these special program info. (i.e 50 +few more because the coverage is increased) .

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

[1]

19 Mar 2019, 23:19

Kudos

Bookmarks

mallya12

Ok, I understand your question. The answer is No and here is why:

"Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not increase the station's listening area."
is not a valid assumption. If the listening area DOES increase, it doesn't impact our conclusion. It is still possible that "the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly"

Note that "the listening area DOES increase" is not much different from what the premise says already "No of radio stations has increased". So presumably, the area RDS signal covers has increased.

But our conclusion is that number of Verdlanders receiving special program did not increase significantly based on "no of RDS equipped radios have not increased".
What we need to say in an assumption is this: this "increased area" does not cover people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
This is what option (A) is.

Does this help?

gmatapprentice

Joined: 14 Nov 2018

Last visit: 21 Apr 2021

Posts: 46

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 211

Location: United Arab Emirates

Concentration: Finance, Strategy

Schools: LBS '22 (I)

GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V30 Verified score

GMAT 2: 670 Q46 V36 Verified score

GPA: 2.6

Schools: LBS '22 (I)

GMAT 2: 670 Q46 V36 Verified score

Posts: 46

Kudos: 15

10 Dec 2019, 21:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

Would appreciate if you could please offer some insights into my approach for negating D and then A.

- After negation, the answer choice D implies that Verd who did own radios equipped to receive RDS could receive programming from RDS radio stations which is correct and doesn’t impact conclusion.

- When choice A is negated, most of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to ppl with RDS equipped radios living in areas previously not reached by RDS stations. This destroys the conclusion hence the answer.

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

10 Dec 2019, 22:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

gmatapprentice

Yes, (A) vs (D) negation certainly seems to confuse test takers. Check out my response to this on these two comments:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/radio-statio ... ml#p849316
https://gmatclub.com/forum/radio-statio ... l#p1152876

CrackverbalGMAT

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Oct 2013

Last visit: 30 Apr 2026

Posts: 4,846

Own Kudos:

9,188

[1]

Given Kudos: 226

Affiliations: CrackVerbal

Location: India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 4,846

Kudos: 9,188

[1]

Updated on: 26 Nov 2021, 18:43

Originally posted by CrackverbalGMAT on 18 Dec 2019, 23:57.
Last edited by CrackverbalGMAT on 26 Nov 2021, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos

Bookmarks

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?

Question type: Assumption

Conclusion: Since the number of RDS equipped radios in Verdland remained the same, the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

1. Radio stations with RDS technology broadcasts ‘special’ programs --> Radios with RDS tech can only receive them.
2. From 1994 --> 1996 number of RDS stations in Verdland increased by 350.
3. Number of RDS radios in Verdland in 1996 = Number of RDS radios in Verdland in 1994 OR Number remained about the same.

Now what might be an assumption on which the conclusion rests? Look at the third statement.

In Verdland, the number of RDS radios between 1994 and 1996 either
1) Didn’t change at all (or)
2) changed negligibly (let’s say 10 to 12)

So, even after 350 new RDS stations in Verdland, it probably means that these new RDS stations were introduced in areas where Verdlanders already had RDS radios--which is why the number wasn't impacted.

With this in mind, let’s look at the options.

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. The simplified version of this option is that there are areas where RDS station frequencies would not reach before, even though people who lived there had RDS-equipped radios and that there are only few or maybe no radio stations that now broadcast to these places. Clearly, this is what the author is assuming and this is the reason why he has concluded that the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase. Another hint: “Few if any of the RDS radio stations” – it means one or two and not more stations. In short, negligible change.

B. In 1996 Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS. Says “in 1996” people in the range could listen. So what? Not an assumption! Even if those who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS, then the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information should have increased.

C. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area. This option talks about listening area/range. Doesn’t fill the gap in logic in any way. Even if equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area then the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information should have increased.

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. Says “any programming” while we are concerned about “special programming”; plus. not an assumption.

E. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming. This is irrelevant and does not fit in with our line of reasoning.

- Nitha Jay

AntrikshR

Joined: 26 Jan 2019

Last visit: 22 Jan 2026

Posts: 123

Own Kudos:

210

Given Kudos: 333

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Technology

GMAT 1: 590 Q47 V24 Verified score

GMAT 2: 670 Q49 V33 Verified score

GRE 1: Q169 V151 Verified score

GMAT 2: 670 Q49 V33 Verified score

GRE 1: Q169 V151 Verified score

Posts: 123

Kudos: 210

16 Apr 2020, 07:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

VeritasKarishma

Samwong

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.

Hello Karishma ,
VeritasKarishma
@VeritasPrepKarishma

What will be the negation of the statement A?

I have considered 'Few if any' as 'some'..and logically opposite of some is 'none'. so if I negate the statement A : 'None of the radio stations that began broadcasting in V after '94 broadcast to people with RDS equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations'. If none of the new radio stations ( post '94) were able to reach remote areas where older RDS stations were not able to reach as well, then the new radio stations might not be able to increase the audience of the special program, which is what the conclusion is saying!....I am not able to understand how the negation statement (in this case) is breaking down the conclusion?

As per your explanation above few means 0/1/2 so, does it mean opposite of 'few' is 'many' and opposite of 'a few' is 'none'?
And negation of A should be 'Many of radio stations......'?

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

[1]

17 Apr 2020, 00:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

AntrikshR

VeritasKarishma

Samwong

"Few if any" is as good as "none". Its negation will be some (could be many too).
When we say, "She has few, if any, flaws." what we want to say is that she has almost no flaws.

"A few" means "some" so its negation will be "none".

Negated (A) will be "Some of the radio stations that began broadcasting in V after '94 broadcast to people with RDS equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations"

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

[1]

24 Apr 2020, 04:13

Kudos

Bookmarks

VeritasKarishma

MICKEYXITIN

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. "
Please kindly explain where i made mistake. Many thanks

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.

Responding to a pm:

Quote:

How can we be sure that people were watching with their neighbours in 1994 as well? What if they were not watching, then the numbers have increased. Also, the statement mentions specifically that in 1996.

In an assumption question, negating an option should break the conclusion.

Negating (D) does not give enough information to break the conclusion. You need to know that there was a change in the social structure in 1996 such that people started getting together to access someone else's RDS radio. Only then can you break the conclusion. IF we don't know whether any such change happened, then we cannot break the conclusion.

Hovkial

Joined: 23 Apr 2019

Last visit: 24 Nov 2022

Posts: 802

Own Kudos:

2,605

Given Kudos: 202

Status:PhD trained. Education research, management.

Posts: 802

Kudos: 2,605

16 Oct 2020, 04:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

OFFICIAL GMAT EXPLANATION

The number of radio stations with RDS technology in Verdland more than doubled in the period 1994–1996—but the number of RDS-equipped radios remained the same. Thus, it is argued, the number of Verdlanders receiving RDS broadcasts did not increase significantly. What does this argument assume?

The argument would be fatally weakened if we added the information that many of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios in areas previously without RDS signals. Therefore, for the argument to succeed, it needs to assume the opposite of this—which is what first choice expresses. This is the correct answer.

The second choice is not a statement that the argument needs to assume in order to succeed: if its opposite were assumed, this would not fatally undermine the argument.

The third choice is not a statement the argument needs to assume—assuming its opposite would not fatally undermine the argument.

The fourth choice suggests that only those Verdlanders who owned RDS-equipped radios could use such radios—and this is not an assumption the argument needs to make.

The fifth choice says that there was some variety in the programming of the RDS stations in 1996. If it were assumed that there was little if any variety, this would not undermine the argument at all.

Crytiocanalyst

Joined: 16 Jun 2021

Last visit: 27 May 2023

Posts: 942

Own Kudos:

214

Given Kudos: 309

Posts: 942

Kudos: 214

02 Jul 2021, 00:15

Kudos

Bookmarks

(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.
Yes this could be a possiblity since the increase in progress was relatively slow so let us hang to it

(B) In 1996 Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.
We cannot be absolutely sure about the same

(C) Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.
This can and cannot be a possiblity since if the listening area decreased that may be the reason of ever increasing RDS induced increase in Radio 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.
Here too we are not in a position to decide the same

(E) The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming
Cannot be determined with the provided argument
Hence IMO B

Vegita

Joined: 23 May 2020

Last visit: 08 Sep 2025

Posts: 85

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1,528

Posts: 85

Kudos: 12

12 Mar 2022, 17:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

CrackverbalGMAT

Please provide some in-depth analysis in the elimination of the incorrect options. Reasoning such as

Quote:

This is irrelevant and does not fit in with our line of reasoning.

is not going to help fellow GMAT aspirants, especially in CR.

Vegita

Joined: 23 May 2020

Last visit: 08 Sep 2025

Posts: 85

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1,528

Posts: 85

Kudos: 12

12 Mar 2022, 17:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

Curious to know what was your reasoning for the elimination of option B- In 1996 Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

I eliminated it because the passage already states that the number of RDS equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994. Therefore, option B provides us with no new information and has no bearing on the argument.

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,457

[2]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,457

[2]

14 Mar 2022, 02:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

Vegita

(B) In 1996 Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

In RDS areas, in 1996, whether everyone had an RDS radio or 90% population had or 80% population had or 40% population had is not assumed by the argument. The argument tells us that number of radios is the same from 1994 to 1996. On the basis of that it is concluding that number of listeners is the same too. Then is it assuming that everyone in that area already had an RDS radio by 1996? No.
Hence (B) is incorrect.

Namangupta1997

Joined: 23 Oct 2020

Last visit: 05 Apr 2025

Posts: 142

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 63

GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38 Verified score

Posts: 142

Kudos: 9

23 Jun 2022, 00:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi AndrewN KarishmaB

Option B states : In 1996 Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.

In 1996, there was an increase of 350 RDS stations. If all those new 350 stations are set outside the listening range, they will not get the broadcast. Hence even after increasing the number from 250 to 600, the number of people who will get the broadcast will not increase. So total number of RDS stations receiving the broadcast is still 250.

If we negate the assumption and assume there are some people that have are within the listening area but they DO NOT have RDS stations installed. Let us say, as an example, there are 50 such 'vacancies' available that can potentially get broadcast if a new RDS station is set. Then out of new 350 RDS stations, 50 are set up in the area within the listening range, hence these 50 RDS stations will start receiving the broadcast. So the total number of RDS stations receiving the broadcast will be 250 + 50 = 300. That is an increase.

Does this make any sense?

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Last visit: 29 Mar 2025

Posts: 3,490

Own Kudos:

7,670

[2]

Given Kudos: 500

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 3,490

Kudos: 7,670

[2]

23 Jun 2022, 13:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

Namangupta1997

Hello, Namangupta1997. I do not understand the purpose of this elaborate chain of reasoning to get behind answer choice (B). Why would (all) Verdlanders already need to have an RDS-compatible radio in 1996 for the argument to hold? I fail to see the connection. Also, I am probably not the best person to ask about the negation technique, since I do not use it myself. Karishma has written about negation in an earlier post, here. To my eye, any of a number of Verdlanders could have had RDS-compatible radios in 1994 and in 1996—e.g., 20 percent, or 90 percent (the number hardly matters). As long as some radios were introduced in the two-year period while others fell by the wayside, the number of RDS equipped radios in Verdland could have been about the same in 1996 as in 1994, and answer choice (B) would be false.

I am not sure whether this is the answer you were seeking, but I will say that whenever you find yourself concocting a string of ifs or assumptions, you are almost assuredly on the wrong track.

- Andrew