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

 It is currently 16 Aug 2018, 20:48

### 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

# Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the - 2 Qs

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 100
Re: CR: Roland vs Sharon  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 07:05
Hi I am unable to understand answer for second question(assumption)

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 313
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: CR: Roland vs Sharon  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 07:33
1
Quote:
Hi I am unable to understand answer for second question(assumption)

1. Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

Sharon states than a moderate rate of umeployment is 5% and then justifies her statement (A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication
that unemployment is abnormally high.

Actually Sharon is implying that it is normal (B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.

Irrelevant (C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative
group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.

Out of scope (D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.

Irrelevant (E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those
without jobs is even higher.

2. Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

Irrelvant (A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

This is the assumption. For example, if it was concentrated and the whoel country was seperated into two groups of 50 people: one group might not know anyone who is umployment and the other group might know 20 people that are umeployment (since it is concentrated) and in this case Sharon's generalized assumption is not correct (B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the
population

Maybe true, but this is not Sharon's assumption it is more of ther conclusion (C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher
than 90% of the population

Irrelevant (D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

Irrelevant (E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing
one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 116
Re: CR: Roland vs Sharon  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 19:47
Quote:
Hi I am unable to understand answer for second question(assumption)

1. Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

Sharon states than a moderate rate of umeployment is 5% and then justifies her statement (A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication
that unemployment is abnormally high.

Actually Sharon is implying that it is normal (B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.

Irrelevant (C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative
group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.

Out of scope (D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.

Irrelevant (E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those
without jobs is even higher.

2. Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

Irrelvant (A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

This is the assumption. For example, if it was concentrated and the whoel country was seperated into two groups of 50 people: one group might not know anyone who is umployment and the other group might know 20 people that are umeployment (since it is concentrated) and in this case Sharon's generalized assumption is not correct (B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the
population

Maybe true, but this is not Sharon's assumption it is more of ther conclusion (C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher
than 90% of the population

Irrelevant (D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

Irrelevant (E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing
one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

good explanation. thanks
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 102
Location: United States
Re: CR: Roland vs Sharon  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2011, 07:23
Quote:
Hi I am unable to understand answer for second question(assumption)

1. Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

Sharon states than a moderate rate of umeployment is 5% and then justifies her statement (A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication
that unemployment is abnormally high.

Actually Sharon is implying that it is normal (B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.

Irrelevant (C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative
group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.

Out of scope (D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.

Irrelevant (E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those
without jobs is even higher.

2. Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

Irrelvant (A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

This is the assumption. For example, if it was concentrated and the whoel country was seperated into two groups of 50 people: one group might not know anyone who is umployment and the other group might know 20 people that are umeployment (since it is concentrated) and in this case Sharon's generalized assumption is not correct (B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the
population

Maybe true, but this is not Sharon's assumption it is more of ther conclusion (C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher
than 90% of the population

Irrelevant (D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

Irrelevant (E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing
one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

Hi,
Can you explain, why C cannot be the answer for the first question.
I mean, probably, A sounds as a better answer because it is assumed that, probably, Sharon wants to contradict the point directly stated by Ronald(i.e. 90% reporting is very high).
But, where does Ronald say it is very high. He says it is alarming, doesn't mean high/low, right?
But, C is a little neutral, meaning, it actually checks something like this:
Sharon checks with Ron, "If what I say is right,(i.e. 5% unemployment), then it is possibly not the group that you(Ron) are talking about, isn't it?
But, I feel, structurally, it should lead to A, and C, might just be in the process to reach A, probably? But, please explain/clarify...
Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 161
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2011, 04:00
great explanations! thanks
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 102
Location: United States
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 07:56
Reading this question after a few days...

Yes, C seems just a possibility now, A is quite comprehensible and conclusive.
Manager
Status: D-Day is on February 10th. and I am not stressed
Affiliations: American Management association, American Association of financial accountants
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 203
Location: Kuwait
Schools: Columbia university
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 14:24
I am sure its B, I remember this from the OG 12
_________________

Sky is the limit

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 163
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 06 Mar 2013, 12:31
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they
know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers
unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will
very likely be unemployed.

1. Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication
that unemployment is abnormally high.
(B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.
(C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative
group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
(D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.
(E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those
without jobs is even higher.

2. Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the
population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher
than 90% of the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing
one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

Plz need detail explanation............

Originally posted by mun23 on 06 Mar 2013, 07:27.
Last edited by mun23 on 06 Mar 2013, 12:31, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1459
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2013, 12:23
This question is from the Official Guide itself.

1. Should be (A) as that almost paraphrases what Sharon is saying.

2. (B) is the correct answer. If unemployment is concentrated in geographically isolated segments, then there would be regions where most people personally knowing someone who is unemployed could mean that unemployment is actually high. Sharon's argument then does not hold.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4665
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2013, 12:29
2
mun23 wrote:
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

1. Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication that unemployment is abnormally high.
(B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.
(C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
(D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.
(E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those without jobs is even higher.

2. Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

Dear mun23,

It's a bit confusing what you have posted here. You have posted two questions and only one OA. I assume the OA you posted was for question #2, and it's not clear whether you want help for question #1 and/or question #2.

In my reading, the OA for #1 is (A) and the OA for #2 is (B). I'll just discuss #2 ---- since you posted the OA to #2, I assume that's the one about which you have a question.

Roland is concerned --- 90% of people in the country know someone who is unemployed, and Roland apparently takes this as evidence that unemployment is high. This is a somewhat bogus argument. Sharon raises what is at root a very sensible objection --- because 90% know someone who is unemployed does not necessarily mean the unemployment rate is high. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of the population, almost everyone, personally knows someone over the age of 80 --- this doesn't mean that the majority of the population is over 80, but just that there are enough 80+ year olds distributed in the population densely enough that virtually everyone knows at least one person like this.

Sharon's argument is essentially a probabilistic argument --- if every person knows 50 people, then if 5% = 0.05 = 1/20 of all people are unemployed, then there's a very high chance that of the 50 random folks one person knows, at least one of them is unemployed. One subtle thing about this argument --- this argument works well if 1/20 is a true probability, that is, if we can pick essentially any group of fifty people, and the probability that any one person is unemployed is 1/20, and this probability is more or less constant as we look at different groups of 50. If the probability is not fixed --- if it's higher in some places and lower in other places --- then that changes the nature of the argument.

Suppose, for simplicity, the entire country consists of just ten cities, with small and equal populations. Suppose people know each other well within each city, but essentially no one from one city knows any one from any other city. (This is a highly unrealistic scenario, just to demonstrate the logic.)
SCENARIO #1: 5% of the people in each of the cities are unemployed --- then, most people in each city would know someone unemployed. Because there's an even distribution, about 90% or more of the population would know someone unemployed, even though only 5% of the population is unemployed. This assumes more or less even distribution of the unemployed. This is consistent with Sharon's argument.
SCENARIO #2: Now, consider an extreme of population concentration --- 50% of the people in City #1 are unemployed, and everyone in the other nine cities are fully employed. Here, everyone in City #1 would know someone unemployed, but City #1 is only 10% of the population. Assume the folks in different cities don't know each other, so no one else know the unemployed in City #1. Thus, 5% of the population is unemployed, and only 10% of the population knows someone unemployed.
In other words, if the unemployed are more-or-less evenly distributed in the population, that is, if we could go anywhere, any region or any subgroup of the population, and the probability that any single person is unemployed is about 5%, then we could have only 5% unemployment but a very high percentages, maybe 90%, who know someone who is unemployed: again, this is essentially Sharon's argument. BUT, if the unemployed are not even distributed, and are instead concentrated geographically in particular places, then Sharon's argument would no longer be valid.

That's why (B) is an excellent answer, the best answer for question #2.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Posts: 98
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Mar 2013, 18:47
I ran on this thread after searching CR practice. This is a trickier question and I think a better summary of the conclusion question would be this

Sharon counters something in Roland's argument using a 'but'. We don't know whether that's the statistic or or his alarm. This becomes clearer at the end of the statement, she counters his alarm, as she cites her own stat and then says there will 'very likely be unemployed,' implying it shouldn't surprise Roland

Another point to take note of is language on a more subtle level. Roland cites 90% across the country. Sharon makes no such great claim.

I had it come down to A and C and the reason I would omit C is, as this is a main point inference conclusion question C seems to be not only doubting the statistic (already established in the premise) but setting up something that isn't the main point, but an additional premise, exactly what you DONT want on a main point/inference question. It just doesn't seem right.
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 368
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the - 2 Qs  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2013, 01:38
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the - 2 Qs &nbs [#permalink] 21 Apr 2013, 01:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.