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.
16 May 2021, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Would strengthen
proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos. Would weaken
proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos. Would weaken
proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
67% (02:14) correct
33%
(02:35)
wrong
based on 1570
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
State A currently allows casino gambling while State B does not. The legislature of State B is considering a proposal under which a limited number of casino licenses would be granted within the state in order to compete with State A for gambling revenue. Given the fact that a great many citizens of State B currently visit casinos in State A, the legislature of State B would be foolish not to enact this proposal.
In the table below, select one statement that would strengthen the proposal and another that would weaken it. Make exactly two selections, one in each column.
In the table below, select one statement that would strengthen the proposal and another that would weaken it. Make exactly two selections, one in each column.
|
Would strengthen proposal |
Would weaken proposal |
Possible statements |
| Some other states that have granted casino licenses have subsequently experienced an overall increase in revenue. | ||
| The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction. | ||
| Currently, more State A residents than State B residents undertake international travel. | ||
| Before State A offered casinos, those residents of State B who wanted to visit casinos had to travel nearly twice as far in order to do so. | ||
| Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos. | ||
| Over the past five years, the gambling revenue that State A has taken in has more than offset the associated infrastructure costs associated with gambling tourism. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Would strengthen
proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos. Would weaken
proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos. Would weaken
proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
rocky620
Retired Moderator
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Last visit: 11 May 2023
Posts: 501
Given Kudos: 229
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22 IIMB EPGP'22 IIMC PGPEX'22 ISB'22
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V22
WE:Other (Retail: E-commerce)
29 Jul 2021, 07:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
We have a plan in action in the question stem and we have to find the pros (strengthen) and cons (weaken) that would affect the outcome in the respective ways.
Result: Increase Gambling revenue in State B.
Plan: Allow limited gambling licences in State B.
Possible statements
Some other states that have granted casino licenses have subsequently experienced an overall increase in revenue......We are specifically concerned with the result of plan, if it is implemented in State B. Other States are ofs. It would neither strengthen nor weaken.
The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction......This will WEAKEN the plan. If this is the case then even if State B allow limited gambling, it will fail to attract the visitors who visit State A, with the primary motive ti visit the nature reserve, and hence there may not be a increase in revenue because of gambling.
Currently, more State A residents than State B residents undertake international travel......Its is completely ofs. It neither strengthens nor weakens.
Before State A offered casinos, those residents of State B who wanted to visit casinos had to travel nearly twice as far in order to do so......This option addresses the distance factor, which may be a problem for many gamblers. It may work as a Strengthener, in absence of a strong contender. Lets hold on to it.
Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos......Now this is a strong STRENGTHENER. We know the primary motive of State B travelers, who visit State A: i.e GAMBLING. Hence, revenue will increase if limited gambling is allowed.
Over the past five years, the gambling revenue that State A has taken in has more than offset the associated infrastructure costs associated with gambling tourism......This option validated the fact that gambling has proven beneficial for State A. But what about State B?
Would strengthen proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos.
Would weaken proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
Result: Increase Gambling revenue in State B.
Plan: Allow limited gambling licences in State B.
Possible statements
Some other states that have granted casino licenses have subsequently experienced an overall increase in revenue......We are specifically concerned with the result of plan, if it is implemented in State B. Other States are ofs. It would neither strengthen nor weaken.
The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction......This will WEAKEN the plan. If this is the case then even if State B allow limited gambling, it will fail to attract the visitors who visit State A, with the primary motive ti visit the nature reserve, and hence there may not be a increase in revenue because of gambling.
Currently, more State A residents than State B residents undertake international travel......Its is completely ofs. It neither strengthens nor weakens.
Before State A offered casinos, those residents of State B who wanted to visit casinos had to travel nearly twice as far in order to do so......This option addresses the distance factor, which may be a problem for many gamblers. It may work as a Strengthener, in absence of a strong contender. Lets hold on to it.
Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos......Now this is a strong STRENGTHENER. We know the primary motive of State B travelers, who visit State A: i.e GAMBLING. Hence, revenue will increase if limited gambling is allowed.
Over the past five years, the gambling revenue that State A has taken in has more than offset the associated infrastructure costs associated with gambling tourism......This option validated the fact that gambling has proven beneficial for State A. But what about State B?
Would strengthen proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos.
Would weaken proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
13 Jun 2024, 17:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
I was considering choice E as a strengthener for awhile but then rejected it .
The conclusion is :- The legislature of State B would be foolish not to enact this proposal.
Premise :- A great many citizens of State B currently visit casinos in State A .
We need to know their actual intention. Hence choice E is kinda irrelevant. Also , what happened in state A may not happen in state B.
Kindly confirm if my reasoning is correct.
KarishmaB GMATinsight
The conclusion is :- The legislature of State B would be foolish not to enact this proposal.
Premise :- A great many citizens of State B currently visit casinos in State A .
We need to know their actual intention. Hence choice E is kinda irrelevant. Also , what happened in state A may not happen in state B.
Kindly confirm if my reasoning is correct.
KarishmaB GMATinsight
