GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 06:51

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 822
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Premium Member
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 28 May 2017, 07:40
33
1
93
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

19% (02:07) correct 81% (02:12) wrong based on 3929 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A. A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

B. The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

C. It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

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.

E. A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________


Originally posted by TGC on 18 Jan 2013, 21:48.
Last edited by broall on 28 May 2017, 07:40, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 37
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2013, 15:51
16
20

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION




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.
General Discussion
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1162
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2015, 04:56
2
1
poverty results in buying unhealthy food
Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

X causes Y
so eliminating y is necessary for eliminating X

parallels the reasoning

A.
    Z causes S
    Therefore,avoid Z to avoid S

B. UE increased deficit
Therefore, to improve deficit, avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

C. residency at state colleges gives secure discounted tuition.
Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students not of colleges.

D. avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet to secure a home mortgage
because all the banks,that have been investigated for improper banking procedures, have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates.

E. A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

Im really confused and this is a tough question.
Can someone explain parallel structure here?
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.


My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773
https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 May 2015
Posts: 100
GMAT 1: 630 Q39 V38
GMAT 2: 670 Q44 V38
GMAT 3: 750 Q49 V44
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2015, 05:45
Time consuming and difficult question!

You can eliminate A, B and C...Leaving you with D and E and probably more than 2min on the clock.

Can anyone explain why D is the right question?

The way I see, the reasoning behind the stem is “People buy low quality food because they are poor, therefore in order to diminish poverty you should improve food quality”, i.e. it assumes that there is a two way street (a vice-versa relation) between cause and effect.

I think D does have this two way street, but not as clear as in the question sten. You want a home mortgage and you should avoid banks that advertise on the web because all the banks recently investigated used to advertise on the web, although not all the banks that advertise on the web were investigated. Sounds more reasonable them the reasoning in the question stem.

In E, you have a much more obvious two way street. People who drive to work during the week drive less during weekend if compared to people who use public transportation during the week. To reduce people who drive to work during the week, you should make more buses and subways available during the weekend to reduce the number of people driving to work.
You are saying that because people drive during the week they (for whatever the reason) drive less during the weekend. Assuming that making more buses and subways available during the weekends will make less people drive to work is the same “and vice-versa” reasoning used in the question stem.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 32
Concentration: Technology, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Information Technology (Consumer Electronics)
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2015, 06:35
I don't think there is two way in the argument.
Unhealthy snack leads to health problems and causes to spend more. Hence concludes improving ones diet is one of the way of getting out of poverty.
It goes on from specific statement of unhealthy snacks to generalizing to quality of diet. Similar trend can be found in correct answer specific some banks to generic all banks.
Answer a and b good arguments.
Answer c can't be right
Answer d and question have assumptions which is questionable
Answer e had two way conflict. Structure is different.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 45
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2015, 06:32
I am not expert at all. But I can still provide some basis.
From the stimulus we find that:
//Poverty leads poor people to have low quality food. So, eliminating low quality food to rely on is crucial to eliminate poverty.//

We have to depend on an assumption to get the same thing from option D because:
//Improper banking procedures lead such banks to rely on Internet ad (to attract people through cheaper rates). So, eliminating Internet ad (through discouraging people to avoid such ads) is CRUCIAL TO ELIMINATE IMPROPER BANKING PROCEDURES.//

But unfortunately, this passage lacks the capital letters part. It is not clear why why people are told to avoid such banks. Is it not to be cheated? Or is it to eliminate improper banking practices?
If the passage clearly states that eliminating improper banking procedures is the ultimate goal like poverty elimination, only then option D could be the answer.

In my opinion, option E is a better candidate. Lets see:
//Poverty →low quality food
If we can weaken the right side, the left side(poverty) will be weakened as well....//

Likewise, in option E:
//Driving to work →less weekend driving
If we can weaken right side through providing available buses, subways on weekend, we can weaken/reduce such people driving to work.//

Hope it helps, even though still unsure.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2015
Posts: 22
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2015, 19:11
15
3
Stem states:

Unhealthy snacks (B) are a result of poverty (A)
Clearly, if one would avoid unhealthy snacks (B) --> one would avoid poverty (A)

This reasoning ignores the fact that A causes B and, thus, changing B will not help to get rid of A.

A. A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

Pets get sick (B) because they are exposed to (A)
To avoid sick pets (B), people should choose (C)


B. The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

Deficit increased (B) because of unchecked expenditures (A)
To bring deficit down (B), the next administration should avoid (A)

This may look similar but in both cases A is changed to cause B to change (and not the other way around)


C. It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

Don't even bother with this one. It brings up a completely unrelated fact.

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.

Online advertisements of shady rates (B) are the result of improper banking procedures (A)
If one would avoid online advertisements (B) --> one would avoid improper banking procedures (A)

This statement ignores the fact that improper banking procedures are the root of the evil and not the online advertisements themselves. BINGO.


E. A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

Less driving on the weekend (B) is the result of commuting during the week (A)
If more public transportation is offered during the weekend (C) --> people would drive less during the week (A)

This is not the right answer choice because it does not touch on the relationship between A and B. For it to be the right answer, it should have read something like "If people would stop driving on the weekend, they would also be more likely to commute to work using public transportation.


I hope this helps.

This question reminded me of the "Let them eat cake" quote by Marie Antoinette (although she never said that). :roll:
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 85
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2015, 18:49
Fact:Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis

Reason:because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food.

Conclusion:Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.


A.
Fact:A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer.

Reason?

Conclusion: Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any
chemicals.
B.
Fact: The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration.

Reason?

Conclusion:Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.


C.
Fact: It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition.

Fact:Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.


D.

Fact:Anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet,

Reason: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.

This sounds parallel

E.
Fact:A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work.

Reason?

Conclusion:To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 20
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Technology, Finance
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V38
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 20:05
Quote:
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A. A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

B. The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

C. It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

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.

E. A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.


I was able to narrow down to B and D.
STEM:-
Cause --> Effect
Poverty --> Unhealthy food

&

~Effect --> ~Cause
Improved quality of food (moving from unhealthy to healthy food) --> Coming out of poverty

Option D:-
Since it is in passive it can rephrased as:-
All the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates. Therefore anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet.

Cause --> Effect
Banks that use of internet to run ads about low rates --> investigated for banking procedures (unsecured loans)

~Effect --> ~Cause
Secured loans --> Avoid banks that use internet to advertise

Pretty tough question.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 20
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Technology, Finance
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V38
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2015, 20:17
1
Quote:
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

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.

A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

I was able to narrow down to B and D.
STEM:-
Cause --> Effect
Poverty --> Unhealthy food

&

~Effect --> ~Cause
Improved quality of food (moving from unhealthy to healthy food) --> Coming out of poverty

Option D:-
Since it is in passive it can rephrased as:-
All the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates. Therefore anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet.

Cause --> Effect
Banks that use of internet to run ads about low rates --> investigated for banking procedures (unsecured loans)

~Effect --> ~Cause
Secured loans --> Avoid banks that use internet to advertise

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

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2016, 23:15
1
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.

Premise: all the BAD banks use Internet ads
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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 6
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Posts: 1
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2016, 14:13
4
Question Stem:
Poverty —> Bad Food
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.


I'm a little confused about whether good diet leads to non-poverty?
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jul 2017
Posts: 18
CAT Tests
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2018, 06:18
there is no expert reply on the explanation of D.
Structure of E matches with question sentence. can someone explain the question
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Mar 2018
Posts: 7
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 May 2018, 11:04
Argument says -
if poor (A) -> then unhealthy diet (B)

Conclusion says -
diet improved (not B) -> not poor anymore (not A)

We've to similar parallelism in the answer choices.

Choice D says -
-------------------------
Improper banks (A) -> low rates (B)

Therefore -
not low rates (not B) -> proper and secure banks (not A)

This is what is stated in choice D
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jan 2018
Posts: 103
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Business Development (Other)
CAT Tests
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2018, 21:57
Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A. A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

B. The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

C. It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

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.

E. A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

very difficult - logic is
a causes b then not-b causes not-a. Option D is in sync with this.
Re: Research has shown that impoverished people in this country &nbs [#permalink] 19 Jun 2018, 21:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.