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

 It is currently 26 Sep 2018, 07:49

### 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-OG10#139

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Posts: 13
Location: United States
GPA: 3.5
WE: Brand Management (Consulting)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2014, 02:38
Geographical concenteration is not indicated in argument,doesn't it make out of scope,and secondly by negating how the argument gets harmed.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 307
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2014, 06:19
" B " WILL BE THE CORRECT ANSWER.......
THE MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION WILL ONLY WORK IF THE SAMPLE IS MIX AND RANDOM SAMPLES ARE CHOSEN.....IF THOSE UNEMPLOYED ARE SEGREGATED SECTION, THE SAMPLES CANT BE RANDOM AND IF WE CHOOSE SAMPLES FROM THE "EMPLOYED" SECTION , THE ARGUMENT WILL NOT HOLD TRUE.... HENCE "B"....

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population... CORRECT
Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 79
Schools: IIMA
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2014, 01:22
B for sure; as you reverse the argument present in b, it will reverse the conclusion

I found it is good was for assumption type of question to mark conclusion first and then check with option ; fo assumtion you reverse the argument it will reverse conclusion too.
_________________

If you are not over prepared then you are under prepared !!!

Retired Moderator
Status: Getting strong now, I'm so strong now!!!
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 483
Location: India
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2015, 03:02
The quesstion is fairly simple if you understand what it treis to test:

Sharon says a fact and she assumes that the fact can be generaaly applied to the entire population.
So if Roland's facts are outliers or falls outside the subset of sharon's generalization then Sharon's argument will fall.
Option B says that
_________________

Regards,

S

Consider +1 KUDOS if you find this post useful

Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Posts: 14
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2015, 19:39
I chose A. I can see the argument for B, but I think it's a poorly designed answer.

A - this is an assumption. She is assuming that a "normal, moderate" level of unemployment has not been exceeded.

B - this is a silly answer, though I commend people for seeing it as the best choice! Geography is not the key driver of social connections. Whether you know someone who is unemployed or not is driven far more by your socio-economic status than geography.

Sometimes I really feel like GMAC is quite out of touch. Rant over, thank you.
Intern
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Posts: 45
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2015, 18:28
2
13
Hello,

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 one out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will very likely be unemployed.

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 percent 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

I dont get how B can be correct? There in no mention of geographically isolated populations?!? I know we have to assume something that is attached to the argument, but this makes no sense to me. Why not A or C? :`(
Intern
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 10
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2015, 04:53
1
Here as per Sharon's argument.

She says that since the country's unemployment rate is at 5 percent, any person in the country who knows at least 50 other people. will know at least some unemployed person - Meaning that there is no way that all these 50 people are employed. And it assumes that this rule applies equally for the whole country.

But maybe one part of the country has a very high unemployment rate and the other part doesn't have any unemployment at all. If all the people a person knows are from the region that is doing well then there is a possibility that all the 50 are employed.

Option B says this. The argument assumes that the unemployement rate is equal for everyone and it is not concentrated in certain regions and not in others.
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 62
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2015, 19:59
haas_mba07 wrote:
Confused?? Can someone explain in a little more detail?

Here it is.
R : 90% people know some unemployed person. (and I thought, what if there are only few U/E people, say 100, but 90% of the people somehow know those 100.)
S: U/E = 5% only.

So, B says, U/E people are not in isolated region, means they are distributed over the area (among the 90% people), so that is how "90% of the people somehow know those 100."
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 335
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2016, 09:08
3
The argument relies on statistics presented by two opponents.
Roland said something is Alarming.
Sharon's argument is: Hei Roland that's not really alarming.
Both guys based their opinions on statistical facts.

Whenever you see arguments based on statistics facts, as u already know, the validity of the conclusion is weakened if it is shown that the statistics is spurious or dubious.
Lack of Structural Stability of data or statistics makes a statistical result unreliable. I.e if the average doesn't closely show what's happening in MOST data points, the result is unreliable. In another language, a data that skews badly off its mean will make the mean result unreliable. e.g if the average of a set of numbers is 5, that average will be more reliable if the numbers are (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or (4,4,5,6,6) than if the numbers are (0, 0, 0, 12, 13) or (1, 1, 2, 10, 11).
each has average of 5.

Assume the numbers above represent unemployment rates in 5 cities)
In the two later sets the high or alarming numbers are concentrated at some cities.
Even though all sets show that the national unemployment rate is 5 which is Normal, It is alarming in some places.

Some macroeconomic indicators rely on arthmetic average.
But the trouble with arithmetic averages is already known.
It doesn't show you what's happening in the whole country.

Option B therefore defends Sharon's point from a most potent weakener: unreliable statistics, Abnormally distributed data. etc

Always bear in mind that CR questions involving data or statistics will test simple knowledge of validity of statistics anytime.
Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 97
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE: Design (Consulting)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2016, 07:28
Why isn't option A right. Isn't Sharon assuming that Option A (normal levels of unemployment are rarely raised).

Also, I didn't get the relation between one in 20 and one in 50 people. How are these two related? Though It is slightly clearer on how Sharon assuming option B to make that statement, Option A could also be true.

Intern
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 6
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2016, 08:46
balaji4799 wrote:
Why isn't option A right. Isn't Sharon assuming that Option A (normal levels of unemployment are rarely raised).

Also, I didn't get the relation between one in 20 and one in 50 people. How are these two related? Though It is slightly clearer on how Sharon assuming option B to make that statement, Option A could also be true.

Sharon said that the normal unemployment rate is 5%, which means 1 out 20 or 2.5 out of 50 people (or "one or more" in Sharon's words) can be unemployed. For why A is not correct, I think Sharon only deducted some facts from the normal unemployment rate and the assumptions for her deductions have nothing to do with whether that normal rate changes or not.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3104
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2016, 12:14
4
1
balaji4799 wrote:
Why isn't option A right. Isn't Sharon assuming that Option A (normal levels of unemployment are rarely raised).

Also, I didn't get the relation between one in 20 and one in 50 people. How are these two related? Though It is slightly clearer on how Sharon assuming option B to make that statement, Option A could also be true.

I found the following excerpt while going through my preparation notes:

correct B: negate this one and you get:
unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
What is the implication of the above? If unemployment is concentrated in certain areas, how can we say that if someone who knows 50 persons will very likely know more than 1 person who is unemployed?
Let's take a simple number example. Country A has two cities: X and Y
City X: population = 100 --> 10 are unemployed
City Y: population = 100 --> 0 are unemployed
Total unemployment rate for country A: 10/200 = 5% --> as claimed by Sharon
As you can see in my example, unemployment is concentrated in a geographical location: city X
Hence, if that someone who Sharon is talking about lives in city Y, is it right to say that that person is likely to know more than one person who is unemployed? No, because that person lives in a city where there is no unemployment whatsoever.
Conclusion: We need to assume that unemployment is not isolated in geographically isolated segments of the population. If not, the argument falls apart.

As for A: Sharon just states the normal level of unemployment. There is nothing in her statement that indicates that she assumes that the normal levels are exceeded (or they don't).
Intern
Joined: 13 Feb 2016
Posts: 16
Location: India
Akhilesh: Das
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q39 V24
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2016, 10:05
sayantanc2k thanks for the explanation.
It really helped to understand why option B is correct. I chose choice A as I did not analyze choice B to this level.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Akhilesh

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 499
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.33
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2017, 06:42
The question deals with the concept of samples. i.e, sharon assumes that the sample space taken into consideration is homogeneous. No other option comes as close as C
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

Director
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 522
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2017, 14:14
1
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 one out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon’s argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
THis answer choice strengthens the claim by sharon,but the claim is not based on this fact.Also even if the unemployment level are not exceeded then the claim will still be valid.
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
This is the correct answer choice since if the unemployment population was concentrated in one region then the correct slection of the sample space of the sample data will never be accurate.The correctness of the claim can only be measured if the unemplyed people are equally distributed.
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90 percent of the population
The choice is incorrect first because it uses a very stong work 'always' which can be avoided in such questions and second even if the 90 is not exceeded the calim will still be valid at 90%.
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
no such indication ,also the data given by roland is appropriate
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one’s job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
out of scope.
Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 45
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2017, 02:54
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.

90% of the people know someone is unemployed. 1 person knows 50 workers, 1 or more likely to to be unemployed. I assumed by statistics based on the fact that unemployment is located in dense population areas because that is the method being described in the premise of getting to know if there is unemployment or not.. by knowing people who are unemployed. If i am sitting in an isolated area then for me, there is no unemployment. Not even 5 percent. This answer came through rigorous POE.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
Tempting answer but look at the word difference. Moderate vs Normal.

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
Refer my assumption

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
I stumbled on this answer choice. But then just think for a moment, it is a complete re-phrase of the conclusion.

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
We are not concerned about Roland's statistics.

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
We are not concerned about the after math of it.
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Posts: 67
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2017, 06:12
B
by negation technique.

If negated it destroys the conclusion.
_________________

Life is a challenge face it.

Manager
Status: Aiming MBA!!
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 125
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE: Web Development (Consulting)
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2017, 10:09
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.

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

My take -

First lets identify the conclusion for this question. Question asks to find the assumption of Sharon's argument.

Conclusion - At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
or At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, at least one will very likely be unemployed.

Any of the options which support the negation of the above argument, that is will actually break the above argument. Will be the answer.
Negation of Conclusion - At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, none will very likely be unemployed.

(B) Negated - unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population.
It supports the negation of conclusion above. At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, none will very likely be unemployed. Because all the unemployed people are normally concentrated on a geographically isolated segments of the population. So, no one knows of these geographically isolated unemployed people. Thus, B is the correct answer.

The image attached clears the option B in more detail. Please let me know, if someone has still any doubt on this question.
Attachments

CR-Roland-Sharon.PNG [ 37.64 KiB | Viewed 583 times ]

Intern
Joined: 22 Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2017, 05:37
What should be the approach to the question?
the options are really ambiguous for me to understand.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2037
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2017, 16:41
1
Quote:
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.

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

What should be the approach to the question?
the options are really ambiguous for me to understand.

According to Sharon, the fact that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed is no cause for alarm. Why not? .. because if the average person knows about 50 workers and if the moderate unemployment level is 5%, then it is likely that the average person will know at least one unemployed person. In other words, the fact that 90 percent of people know someone who is unemployed might be explained by moderate unemployment, not necessarily by alarming levels of unemployment.

We need an answer choice on which that line of reasoning depends.

Quote:
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

Say we have moderate levels of employment (with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed). If unemployment is spread out evenly across the country, then the author's argument makes sense. In other words, if unemployment is evenly spread, then I can pick any 100 workers and expect to find about 5 unemployed workers in that group.

What if most of those unemployed workers are concentrated in a few geographically isolated segments of the population? In that case, if unemployment is moderate, we would expect MOST people to NOT know an unemployed worker and SOME people to know several unemployed workers.

But Roland tells us that now 90 percent of the people in this country report knowing someone who is unemployed. If unemployment is concentrated in only a few isolated segments, then this statistic is alarming. Why?... because now most people, even those who are NOT in those isolated segments, know someone who is unemployed. Unless unemployment is evenly spread, Roland's statistic suggests that unemployment is much higher than 5%.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139 &nbs [#permalink] 09 Nov 2017, 16:41

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 60 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the-OG10#139

## 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®.