Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
06 Apr 2020, 02:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
48% (02:23) correct
52%
(02:26)
wrong
based on 223
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
S: It would be premature to act to halt the threatened “global warming trend,” since that alleged trend might not be real. After all, scientists disagree about it, some predicting over twice as much warming as others, so clearly their predictions cannot be based on firm evidence.
W: Most scientists consider discussions of accepted ideas boring, and prefer to argue about what is not known. According to the International Science Council there is a consensus among reputable investigators that average global warming in the next century will be from 1.5℃ to 4.5℃.
W’s rejoinder proceeds by
(A) denying the existence of the disagreements cited by S
(B) accepting S’s conclusion while disputing the reasons offered for it
(C) relying on authorities whose views conflict with the views of the authorities cited by S
(D) putting disagreements cited by S in perspective by emphasizing similarities
(E) reasoning in a circle by accepting evidence only if it agrees with a desired conclusion
06 Apr 2020, 09:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
ARGUMENT
s= premature to halt the trend because it might not be real
= after all, scs disagree about it, their pred are not firm evidence
w= most find accepted ideas boring, and prefer to argue about unknown
= according to consensus by reputable's the average would be 1.5-4.5c
Ans (D) w proceeds by putting s's disagreements about scs predictions into perspective by emphasizing similarities.
13 Apr 2020, 19:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
I'm totally lost in how to solve these types of questions. I've answered several and I have gotten every single one wrong, and completely left field. Can somehow help break down my reasoning and suggest a method of pre-thinking that can help me?
(A) denying the existence of the disagreements cited by S
correct? S says scientists predictions are so far from each other that they are not right. W says there is consensus among scientists at the ISC. Isn't W denying the existence of the disagreement cited by S (i.e. the inconsistent data given by scientists?
(B) accepting S’s conclusion while disputing the reasons offered for it
incorrect: S's conclusion is that the trend of global warming isn't real. I don't have any information from W saying whether he accepts S's conclusion or not.
(C) relying on authorities whose views conflict with the views of the authorities cited by S
incorrect: S says scientist predict twice from each other and have no consensus. W says they have consensus, but that consensus is a range that is 1.5-4.5 (more than 2 times). Therefore the views of the authorities (i.e. scientists) are the same, not in conflict.
(D) putting disagreements cited by S in perspective by emphasizing similarities
putting disagreements in perspective- perhaps yes since W agrees with S, but takes a position that attempts to say that it's not a lack of firm evidence (there is consensus), but it is because scientists like to disagree on things that aren't known. But, emphasizing similarities? - it that what W is doing? What is W's point with respect to S?
(E) reasoning in a circle by accepting evidence only if it agrees with a desired conclusion
incorrect- I don't see how W is using evidence only if it accepts his conclusion. To be honest, I don't see the that W has a conclusion. It looks like just a response to S.
(A) denying the existence of the disagreements cited by S
correct? S says scientists predictions are so far from each other that they are not right. W says there is consensus among scientists at the ISC. Isn't W denying the existence of the disagreement cited by S (i.e. the inconsistent data given by scientists?
(B) accepting S’s conclusion while disputing the reasons offered for it
incorrect: S's conclusion is that the trend of global warming isn't real. I don't have any information from W saying whether he accepts S's conclusion or not.
(C) relying on authorities whose views conflict with the views of the authorities cited by S
incorrect: S says scientist predict twice from each other and have no consensus. W says they have consensus, but that consensus is a range that is 1.5-4.5 (more than 2 times). Therefore the views of the authorities (i.e. scientists) are the same, not in conflict.
(D) putting disagreements cited by S in perspective by emphasizing similarities
putting disagreements in perspective- perhaps yes since W agrees with S, but takes a position that attempts to say that it's not a lack of firm evidence (there is consensus), but it is because scientists like to disagree on things that aren't known. But, emphasizing similarities? - it that what W is doing? What is W's point with respect to S?
(E) reasoning in a circle by accepting evidence only if it agrees with a desired conclusion
incorrect- I don't see how W is using evidence only if it accepts his conclusion. To be honest, I don't see the that W has a conclusion. It looks like just a response to S.
