Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 15:35

It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 15:35

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

Nov 20
UCR MBA Impact - Live Q&A with UCR AdCom & Student
07:30 AM PST
-
08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 22
GMAT RC Masterclass
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Nov 23
Conquer Algebra on the GMAT Focus Edition
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Nov 25
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
10:00 AM EST
-
11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.

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: 19 Nov 2025

Posts: 16,267

Own Kudos:

77,001

Given Kudos: 482

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,267

Kudos: 77,001

24 Jun 2022, 02:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

Namangupta1997

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?

Namangupta1997

I am a little confused here.

"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"

Not sure what this means. When an RDS station is set, it creates a listening range. People around the station will be able to listen to RDS programming. How can stations be set outside the listening range? They create listening range. When you use "they" here, who are you talking about - stations or people? I think you are talking about stations but they do not receive broadcast; they send out broadcast.

"...assume there are some people that have are within the listening area but they DO NOT have RDS stations installed"

Not sure what this means either. If people are within the listening area, how can they not have RDS station around? They can listen to programming only when a station is around.

I am not sure you are linking the concept of stations properly. RDS stations will broadcast programming and the area around them will be able to receive. If someone within this area has an RDS equipped radio, he will be able to listen to the program.

rashwiniyer

Joined: 18 Aug 2012

Last visit: 09 Jan 2024

Posts: 65

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 78

Posts: 65

Kudos: 6

14 Aug 2022, 01:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

I was not able to understand the English of option A. Once I understood, I found option A to be the obvious answer.
I don't know what can I do about this. Any suggestion?

"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."

====

mikemcgarry

zoezhuyan

Dear experts,
I read lots of posts about option D for this case, but my confusion has not sorted out.

First, my confusion is the conclusion that the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly. I am not sure whether only I have this problem as below.
my doubt is the number of people receiving. The argument does state radio with an RDS feature can receive from those radio station with RDS , but does not state how people receive. for example, if 4 people are round the a radio with RDS , then 4 people can receive, if 400 people are round the same radio, then 400 people receive , right?
therefore, I think it is a big gap between the number of people receiving and the radio with RDS,
I did not negate D, (I am so poor at negating), when I read D, I get that people who have no RDS radio can not receive, so it eliminate my concern above. in other words , those who have no RDS radio won't get the access to special information through other methods, such as go to their friend who have RDS radios.
that's why I picked up D.

Review A, the core is radio station cannot early reach by RDS station, I think that it destroy the premise "radio with RDS is the only way to receive the special program information." whenever we meet CR, we accept the premises from the prompts, that's why I cross off A.

this question does confused me a lot. although I read lots of posts.

genuinely want your clarification.

thanks in advance, thanks million.

have a nice day

>_~

Dear zoezhuyan
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, you are confused about a few things in this question. First of all, I want to teach you a pair of technical logical words, to highlight one of your misunderstandings. These are the words "necessary" and "sufficient." One way to say it is as follows:
"A is necessary for B." Here we know that if A doesn't happen, then B would not happen. If A doesn't happen, then it may or may not be true that B can happen.
For example, A might be "car has gasoline" and B might be "car is able to transport someone." It's absolutely true that if a car does not have any gas, it will not go anywhere. If the car has gas, it may be operational, or there many be any one of a host of other automotive difficulties that prevent it from going anywhere.
The word "sufficient" summaries the opposite relationship.
"A is sufficient for B." This means that if A happens, we know that B must be true; in other words, A is a guarantee for B. If A doesn't happen, then B may or may not be true. For example, here, A could "car is able to transport someone" and B would be "car has gasoline." If I drive the car from one place to the next, it is guaranteed that at least during the time I was driving, the car had gas. On the other hand, if I can't even turn the car on, it may be out of gas, or it may have another problem.
Overall, we can that "having gas" is necessary but not sufficient for a car to be able to travel.

This prompt says that: "Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive." Much in the same way, having a radio with RDS technology is necessary but not sufficient for receiving this "special program information." If my radio does NOT have RDS technology, then there's no way that I will receive that information. If my radio DOES have RDS technology, then that's helpful, but not a guarantee that I will receive the information. The radio may be not plugged in, or out of batteries, receiving poor reception, or be out of range, or the information might be broadcast in a language that I don't understand. Any of these scenarios, and many more, would result in cases in which my radio did have the RDS technology and still did not receive the information. All of this is consistent with the statement in the prompt. The mistake which caused you to cross off (A) was reading this "necessary" statement as a "sufficient" statement.

Your point about many people listening to a single radio is interesting. There aren't many real world scenarios, at least in the more developed countries, in which a large number of people regularly listen to a single radio. Also, typically, such places would be constructed specifically for that purpose: it would be quite unusual if a place were created that could accommodate 400 listeners, but at first, only four listeners were using it. No one constructs a big space if it looks as if only a handful of people are likely to use it.

Choice (D) is particularly interesting, because it is absolutely something that must be true, based on the statements in the prompt. If the prompt question had been, "If the statements above are true, which of the following also must be true," then (D) would be the correct answer. It's the correct answer for the wrong question. It doesn't answer the question that actually was asked: "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?" We can't really use negating to eliminate (D), because it has to be true given that the prompt statements are true. It's something true that must be true, based on the prompt, but it is not an assumption because it doesn't help link the premises to the conclusion.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

03 Sep 2022, 12:58

Kudos

Bookmarks

(i) In 1994 - lets say, there were
- 3000 RDS equipped radios (out of which 2000 receive special programming, implying the 1000 dont receive any programming, even though the 1000 have RDS equipped radios)
- 7000 did not have RDS equipped radios

(ii) We know in 1994, there were 250 radio stations with radio data system (RDS)

(iii) In 1996, 250 radio stations with radio data system (RDS) increased to 600 radio stations [increase of 350 radio stations with radio data system (RDS)]

If i understand the conclusion is saying : approx 2000 or in 1996 are getting special program information

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

04 Sep 2022, 07:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi - my question on the conclusion

Quote:

the number of Verdlanders (receiving the special program information) probably did not increase significantly.

What does this mean exactly ?

Let say, total population = 300
- Lets say 100 people had RDS radios and 200 people did not have RDS radios.

If (2/200) go over to the house of some one with a RDS radio -- then these (2/200) will be able to 'receive the special programming', no ?

The phrase 'receiving the special program information' is confusing

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

04 Sep 2022, 08:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi - if i understand the argument

RDS technology within radio is A NECESSARY requirement to recieve special programming.
Number of radio stations have increased
Number of radios with RDS technology have stayed the same.
==========================================
Hence, people who could recieve the special programming (they dont have to be weekly listeners to the program, just the option to listen in to the special programming if they chose to) have stayed the same

Could you confirm if blue in the bracket is your understanding as well ?

Is this not an assumption being made ?

Quote:

Lets say Avi doesnt own a RDS radio whereas JD does own a RDS radio.
Avi CANNOT walk over to JD's house and listen to JD's RDS radio
If Avi could do that, Avi is an example of "a person receiving the special program information" ?

What about these assumptions ?

(i) People who do have RDS radios, the RDS technology feauture has not failed in any of the RDS radios.
(ii) The RDS technology feauture CANNOT BE DOWNLOADED onto a laptop - This way, folks with laptops cannot "Recieve the special program information"

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,293

Own Kudos:

1,931

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,293

Kudos: 1,931

04 Sep 2022, 18:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Hi - if i understand the argument

RDS technology within radio is A NECESSARY requirement to recieve special programming.
Number of radio stations have increased
Number of radios with RDS technology have stayed the same.
==========================================
Hence, people who could recieve the special programming (they dont have to be weekly listeners to the program, just the option to listen in to the special programming if they chose to) have stayed the same

Could you confirm if blue in the bracket is your understanding as well ?

Confirmed, jabhatta2.

jabhatta2

Is this not an assumption being made ?

Quote:

Lets say Avi doesnt own a RDS radio whereas JD does own a RDS radio.
Avi CANNOT walk over to JD's house and listen to JD's RDS radio
If Avi could do that, Avi is an example of "a person receiving the special program information" ?

No, the argument is about the change from 1994 to 1996. If Avi walks over to JD's house in 1996, he would have also done that in 1994. Perhaps this would be a good answer choice, along the lines of your suggestion:
Verdlanders who didn't have access to an RDS equipped radio in 1994 didn't spend the following year developing networks of friends with RDS equipped radios so that they could go over to those friends' houses and receive the special program information.

jabhatta2

What about these assumptions ?

(i) People who do have RDS radios, the RDS technology feauture has not failed in any of the RDS radios.

Why is that a required assumption? So what if the RDS failed in some of the RDS equipped radios? That would strengthen the argument, not destroy it.

jabhatta2

(ii) The RDS technology feauture CANNOT BE DOWNLOADED onto a laptop - This way, folks with laptops cannot "Recieve the special program information"

No, this goes against the premise:

Quote:

Radio Stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.

SatvikVedala

Joined: 03 Oct 2022

Last visit: 03 May 2025

Posts: 177

Own Kudos:

121

Given Kudos: 51

Posts: 177

Kudos: 121

11 Jan 2023, 23:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

lexis

Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

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) 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 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 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.

Consider there are 600 verdlanders & each verdlander possess 1 RDS radio

in 1994 only 250 people can receive special program information

but in 1996 as the number of stations increased to 600, all the 600 people can listen to special program (considering previously installed stations couldn't reach them)

Hence Option A

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

Updated on: 12 Jan 2023, 12:50

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 12 Jan 2023, 12:22.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 12 Jan 2023, 12:50, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATGuruNY ReedArnoldMPREP ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi
- how do you eliminate (d) ?

(i) Some experts are focusing on the subtle difference between

**special program** (pink font) vs **any programming** (blue font)

(ii) Some experts are saying -- (D) is an inference and not an assumption

Not sure

Quote:

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.

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

(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.

I personally believe (D) is a NECESSARY assumption.

Why ? Lets say Mr X did not have a RDS radio. in 1994.

In 1995 specifically - Mr X went to his friend's house [Mr Y]. Mr Y has a RDS equipped radio.

In 1995 - Mr X and Mr Y both listen to the special program.

Now, the number of people receiving the special program has gone up in 1995 (by 1) - even though the number of RDS equipped radios has stayed the same, given Mr X never BOUGHT a RDS equipped radio.

D clearly closes this gap

Some experts (post below) have said that my scenario is not a genuine gap because Mr X must have been then going to Mr Y's house then, in 1994.. I personally think my scenario listed above is very realistic. -- its quite possible Mr X ONLY started doing this in 1995 only.

-----------------

Expert 1 on the gap closed by (D)

avigutman

No, the argument is about the change from 1994 to 1996. If Avi walks over to JD's house in 1996, he would have also done that in 1994.

Expert 2 on the gap

KarishmaB

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.

ReedArnoldMPREP

Manhattan Prep Instructor

Joined: 30 Apr 2021

Last visit: 20 Dec 2024

Posts: 521

Own Kudos:

536

Given Kudos: 37

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47 Verified score

Posts: 521

Kudos: 536

12 Jan 2023, 12:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Quote:

I personally believe (D) is a NECESSARY assumption.

Why ? Lets say Mr X did not have a RDS radio. in 1994.

In 1995 specifically - Mr X went to his friend's house [Mr Y]. Mr Y has a RDS equipped radio.

In 1995 - Mr X and Mr Y both listen to the special program.

Now, the number of people receiving the special program has gone up in 1995, even though the number of RDS equipped radios has stayed the same, given Mr X never BOUGHT a RDS equipped radio.

I don't see how is this gap addressed personally.

Some experts have said that this gap is addressed because Mr X must have been then doing this, even in 1994 then. But, realistically - its quite possible Mr X started doing this in 1995 only.

I am struggling to see how your story about Mr. X and Mr. Y relates to D.

You are right to think about the possibility that "There are MORE PEOPLE listening to each RDS radio than there were before, so even though the number of radios has not changed, the number of PEOPLE getting RDS program information has increased!"

But the answer choice that would correspond to this thought would be something like, "The average number of people regularly listening to radios that have RDS technology has not increased," or, "Neighbors are not more commonly visiting their neighbors house to listen to their RDS radios in 1996 than were in 1994."

Answer D just says "People who don't have RDS radios cannot receive RDS broadcasting." I *think* what you might be thinking is: "But maybe those people who without the RDS radios can visit their friends who do have RDS radios," and maybe they can, but the answer should mention something like that explicitly.

A related thought: those people without RDS could have *always* been visiting their friends, in 1994 and in 1996. So if D is negated, and "People without RDS radios *could* receive *some* broadcasts from RDS stations after 1994," they would have *always been included in the number of people who receive RDS broadcast.* We have no reason to think the number of such people increased or decreased.

In 1994 and in 1996 we have about the same number of radios that can receive RDS. The people who could hear that braodcast would be:

The owners of such radios + anyone else the owners have invited to listen

Maybe that second group is 0 (and then such people had NO ACCESS to RDS broadcast--what D suggests) and maybe that group was ten million (and then such people had SOME ACCESS to RDS broadcast--the negation of D). Neither ruins the argument that "The number of people listening to RDS broadcasts has not increased significantly."

GMATGuruNY

Tutor

Joined: 04 Aug 2010

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 1,344

Own Kudos:

3,796

Given Kudos: 9

Schools:Dartmouth College

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 1,344

Kudos: 3,796

12 Jan 2023, 13:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

how do you eliminate (d) ?

Apply the NEGATION test.
When the correct answer is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.
Note:
If the negation for an answer choice seems to weaken a PREMISE, eliminate the answer choice.
For the purposes of CR, a premise is a FACT.
A fact cannot be weakened.

PREMISE:
Radio Stations with RDS broadcast information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.

D, negated:
Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could receive some programming from the RDS radio stations.
This negation seems to weaken the PREMISE that ONLY RADIOS WITH AN RDS FEATURE can receive information from RDS stations.
Since the negation of D seems to weaken a premise, eliminate D.

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

12 Jan 2023, 13:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATGuruNY

jabhatta2

how do you eliminate (d) ?

Hi gmatguru - Thank you for your response. Not sure I agree with the statement in the yellow highlight above.

If you pay attention to the subject in Option (d) – it is Verlander’s (i.e. People)

Had the subject in (D) been instead -- Non-RDS radios -- THEN – Yes, the negation of (D) would then go against the premise.

If you read the premise VERY CLOSELY, the premise is talking about what can “RDS Radios” do.

The premise is NOT necessarily saying “People (who have NON RDS radios) cannot access special programming in 1994 / 1995 / 1996”

For example - even with the Premise being true -- Mr X (who owns a NON-RDS radio) can still be accessing special programming in 1994 or 1995" -- this scenario is plausible, keeping with the premise.

There is small subtlety there

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

12 Jan 2023, 14:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

Thank you so much for your time @ReedArnoldMPREP" --

ReedArnoldMPREP

"I *think* what you might be thinking is: "But maybe those people who without the RDS radios can visit their friends who do have RDS radios,"

the above scenario was exactly what I was thinking.

ReedArnoldMPREP

"In 1994 and in 1996 we have about the same number of radios that can receive RDS. The people who could hear that braodcast would be:

The owners of such radios + anyone else the owners have invited to listen"

I agree with the above red equation. Maybe the second group had 0 people in 1994 or 10 million in 1994. We don't know.

If say 10 million in 1994, that 10 million number is because of the 250 Radio stations.

The absolute key is to make sure that 10 million number doesnt increase because of the additional 350 (not 250) radio stations in 1995 and 1996.

ReedArnoldMPREP

"A related thought: those people without RDS could have *always* been visiting their friends, in 1994 and in 1996. So if D is negated, and "People without RDS radios *could* receive *some* broadcasts from RDS stations after 1994," they would have *always been included in the number of people who receive RDS broadcast.*"

I don’t agree with the red bit specifically.

(D) use the a specific time-frame : “After 1994”

If Mr X was sharing with Mr Y in 1994 itself – (D) is not touching upon this timeframe.

(D) is specifically saying – 10 million in 1994 is okay but No NEWS CASES of folks sharing in 1995 /1996 is seen

At-least that was my interpretation of (D)

ReedArnoldMPREP

Manhattan Prep Instructor

Joined: 30 Apr 2021

Last visit: 20 Dec 2024

Posts: 521

Own Kudos:

536

Given Kudos: 37

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47 Verified score

Posts: 521

Kudos: 536

12 Jan 2023, 14:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Thank you so much for your time.

ReedArnoldMPREP

I *think* what you might be thinking is: "But maybe those people who without the RDS radios can visit their friends who do have RDS radios,"

the above scenario was exactly what I was thinking.

ReedArnoldMPREP

Well, the '1994' is about the new radio stations...

With:

Quote:

(D) is specifically saying – 10 million in 1994 is okay but No NEWS CASES of folks sharing in 1995 /1996 is seen

**You're** bringing in the "New."

D says: 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.

If that is negated:

"In 1996 Verdlanders without RDS radios COULD receive SOME programming from RDS stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994."

This DOES NOT MEAN those same people WERE NOT able to receive the broadcasts from the original 250 stations in 1994! That is, with this negation, we have no reason to think these RDS-Less people who somehow get access to broadcasts from the new 350 stations are DIFFERENT FROM the original bunch of RDS-Less people who somehow got access to broadcasts from the original 250 stations.

In order for an answer to do what you're looking for D to do, you need something like:

"In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS and who did not receive broadcasts from RDS stations by some other way in 1994 could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994."

Now... I also think there's something about the verb RECEIVE broadcasts vs. "HEAR" broadcasts that we could quibble about, but that's mostly a stylistic thing (I just don't think the GMAT would use the verb "receive broadcast" to include people who go next door to listen to the broadcast).

But mostly, I think if D included a specification that *there was no increase* in RDS-less people listening to broadcasts, your case would be stronger.

If we negate this version of D:

Quote:

"In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS and who did not receive broadcasts from RDS stations by some other way in 1994 could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994."

We'd get "In 1996, Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS and who did not receive broadcasts from RDS stations by some other way in 1994 COULD receive SOME programming from RDS stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994."

This would much more ruin the argument than D currently does.

The thing is... You're kind of looking to make "D" do what "A" does explicitly. Just... Pick A, for doing the thing.

GMATGuruNY

Tutor

Joined: 04 Aug 2010

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 1,344

Own Kudos:

3,796

Given Kudos: 9

Schools:Dartmouth College

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 1,344

Kudos: 3,796

14 Jan 2023, 04:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

GMATGuruNY

jabhatta2

how do you eliminate (d) ?

When I type "people receive cable" into Google, virtually every result refers to the same statistic:
The number of people who receive cable television in their HOMES.
The usage of "receive" conveys this meaning -- that the signal is received at home.
D, negated:
Verdlanders who did not own RDS radios could receive some programming from RDS radio stations.
Here, the usage of receive implies that an RDS signal can sometimes be received at a person's home, even if the homeowner does not own an RDS radio.
While a homeowner could not own but lease an RDS radio -- unlikely, but not impossible -- in that case the radio should receive ALL of the programming.
Since only SOME of the programming is received, the implication is that an RDS radio is not present when a portion of the special programming is received.
This implication contradicts the premise that an RDS radio is required to receive the special programming.
Since a premise cannot be contradicted, eliminate D.

Raman109

Joined: 17 Aug 2009

Last visit: 28 Jul 2025

Posts: 805

Own Kudos:

170

Given Kudos: 33

Posts: 805

Kudos: 170

29 Sep 2023, 04:56

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

Let's look at the conclusion in such a way the number did not increase significantly BECAUSE the number of radios was the same. Suppose there were 2 million people with RDS radios, but since the number of Radio stations was less, only 2000 people were covered out of 2 million. Now, with the increase in radio stations, all 2 million can be reached - this is a drastic increase from 2000 to 2 million people receiving program information. In such cases, the conclusion will shatter. So, we have to shield the conclusion by ensuring none or few (few means almost none) of these 2 million people are now covered by the increased number of stations for the conclusion to be true.

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

Option elimination -

(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. In line with our pre-thinking.

(B) In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS - If most had a radio in 1996 and the argument says that this number hasn't changed since 1994, this strengthens the conclusion. If we negate it. Not most had radios, but the conclusion still holds. That is not our assumption.

(C) Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area. - What will happen if we equip the radio station with RDS technology is not out of scope.

(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. - People who didn't own the radios with RDS are irrelevant to the argument and out of scope.

(E) The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming. - Type of programming is out of scope.

AnkitNandwani1

Joined: 25 Jul 2022

Last visit: 16 Nov 2025

Posts: 29

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 87

GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q80 V78 DI80 Verified score

GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29 Verified score

GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q80 V78 DI80 Verified score

GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29 Verified score

Posts: 29

Kudos: 7

15 Jul 2024, 11:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument states that the number of people in Verdland receiving special program information from RDS radio stations did not increase significantly between 1994 and 1996, despite the increase in the number of RDS radio stations. This conclusion is based on the premise that the number of RDS-equipped radios remained roughly the same during this period.

To support this conclusion, the argument relies on the assumption that the expansion in the number of RDS stations did not result in more people having access to RDS broadcasts. This would mean that the new stations were not reaching new audiences who had RDS-equipped radios.

Let's evaluate each answer choice to see which one supports this assumption:

(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.

- This statement supports the assumption by suggesting that the new RDS stations were not reaching new audiences with RDS-equipped radios. Therefore, the number of people receiving the special program information did not increase significantly.

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

- This statement does not support the assumption. If most Verdlanders in the listening area already had RDS radios, the number of people receiving the special information might have increased as the number of stations increased.

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

- This statement is irrelevant to the argument because it does not address the number of people with RDS-equipped radios.

(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.

- This statement is true but does not support the assumption that the new stations were not reaching new audiences with RDS-equipped radios.

(E) The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

- This statement is irrelevant because it does not address the number of people with RDS-equipped radios.

The correct answer is:

(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.

This assumption supports the argument by indicating that the increase in the number of RDS stations did not result in more people receiving the special program information because the new stations did not reach new audiences with RDS-equipped radios.

mbaprepavi

Joined: 20 Jul 2024

Last visit: 18 Apr 2025

Posts: 35

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 108

Location: India

Posts: 35

Kudos: 30

18 Oct 2024, 12:02

Kudos

Bookmarks

Sharing my thought process, hope it helps someone:

To determine which assumption the argument depends on, we first need to understand the structure of the argument:

Premise: Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600.
Premise: The number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994.
Conclusion: Therefore, the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

The argument hinges on the idea that despite the increase in RDS stations, the number of people receiving RDS content didn't increase significantly because the number of RDS-equipped radios remained the same. An implicit assumption here is that the new RDS stations didn't reach new RDS-radio-equipped listeners who weren't already served by existing stations

Option (A): It states that the new RDS stations did not broadcast to new areas with RDS-radio-equipped listeners. This directly supports the argument's assumption that the increase in stations didn't expand the audience receiving RDS content. Therefore this is our assumption.

Option 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.

It Implies that those without RDS radios couldn't receive any programming from new RDS stations, which is not pertinent since the argument focuses on those with RDS radios...

Why Option D is Not an Assumption the Argument Depends On:

Focus of the Argument: The argument is concerned with the number of people receiving special program information via RDS, which requires an RDS-equipped radio.
Irrelevance to Non-RDS Listeners: Whether people without RDS radios could receive any programming from new RDS stations is not directly relevant to the argument. The special program information is accessible only through RDS-equipped radios.
No Impact on Conclusion: If Verdlanders without RDS radios could receive programming (but not the special RDS information), this doesn't affect the argument about the number of people receiving the special program information
Negated Statement: In 1996, Verdlanders who did not own RDS radios could receive programming from the new RDS stations
Effect on Argument: Even if non-RDS radio owners could receive some programming, they still couldn't access the special RDS information. Thus, the argument's conclusion remains unaffected

VerbalBot

Non-Human User

Joined: 01 Oct 2013

Last visit: 04 Jan 2021

Posts: 18,830

Own Kudos:

986

Posts: 18,830

Kudos: 986

02 Nov 2025, 03:16

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.