It is currently 18 Mar 2018, 18:12

### 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

# Research has shown that impoverished people in this country

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 01 Aug 2016
Posts: 1
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2016, 23:15
1
KUDOS
skiingforthewknds wrote:
Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.

Actually I find the "Correct answer D" is NOT parallel to the reasoning line of the argument in the stem.

I agree with the OE that the reasoning line of the stem is:
∵ A leads to B ∴ not A leads to not B which is illogical, of course.

BUT, let's look at choice D:
Anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet, because all the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates.

Conclusion: avoiding all the banks using Internet ads, can make people avoid all bad banks.

Think it thoroughly, D is actually logical and well-founded. Suppose there are ABCDEF 6 banks in the market, ABC are the 3 bad guys (which according to the premise all use Internet ads) and two good guys, DE, also use the Internet ads. By avoiding all the banks that advertise on the Internet, people of course can successfully avoid all the bad guys. So this answer choice is flawless in reasoning.
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 7
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2016, 22:00
skiingforthewknds wrote:
Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.

I have a doubt with the first line of your explanation. "evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). " Isint the conclusion here: "not b " leads to "not A", as it states that a good diet is crucial for stepping out of poverty.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Posts: 1
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2016, 14:13
4
KUDOS
Question Stem:
Thus, No Bad Food (aka Good Food) —> Less Poverty

A) Bad Spray —> Sick Pet
THUS, choose good Spray!
{Does not match structure of question stem.}

B) Spending —> More Deficit
THUS, No Spending —> Less Deficit
{Does not match structure of question stem.}

C) Discount —> Residency
Discount also —> Affect Standing
THUS, Discount only to Locals
{Does not match structure of question stem.}

D) Avoid Low Internet Rate —> More Security
SINCE, Bad Security Banks —> Low Internet Rate
{Does not match structure of question stem AT FIRST GLANCE. But Flip the Line 1 and 2, then it matches.}

E) Self-Drivers to Work do —> Less Weekend Driving (compared to Pub.Trans.Users ‘who own a car' )
THUS, More Pub.Trans Facilities on Weekend —> Less Self-Driver
{Matches structure of question stem to some extent, but Meaning Mismatch between Less Weekend Driving and More Public Transport Facilities}

-----------------
After flipping Line 1 and 2 of option D, it matches the structure of the question stem.
Bad Security Banks —> Low Internet Rate
THUS, Avoid Low Internet Rate —> More Security

So, D is the right answer.
-------------------
Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 19
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2017, 11:09
hello experts,

kindly help us with the above question
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2017, 06:14
skiingforthewknds wrote:
Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.

Seem corresponding contrapositive of " A(poverty) -> B(bad diet)" appears "not B( good diet) ->not A (non-poverty)"

then you mention the critical phrase" is crutial to " means the former is only a neccessary condition for the latter, thus "not B -> not A" is false. Instead, "not A -> not B" is correct.
Intern
Joined: 19 Jun 2017
Posts: 41
Location: India
GPA: 3.23
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2017, 09:45
Please provide a proper easy explanation and a way to tackle this kind of question.
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country   [#permalink] 01 Nov 2017, 09:45

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 26 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by