|
|
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.
bhanu29
Joined: 02 Oct 2024
Last visit: 30 Apr 2026
Posts: 363
Given Kudos: 263
Location: India
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79 
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
GPA: 9.11
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Products:
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
Posts: 363
09 Feb 2026, 00:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Statement by a trade association representing record labels:
The justifications offered by proponents of unlawful file sharing are entirely specious. Just like physical products, such as televisions and stereos, music costs money to produce and distribute, and those costs cannot be recouped by means other than music sales. The much ballyhooed “360-deal,” in which a record label receives a percentage of an artist’s touring and merchandise income, is no solution; most major artists refuse to sign them. Thus, we will continue to safeguard the future of the industry by fighting illegal file sharing by any means necessary. Up to now, our options have been limited to litigation: we have sued numerous individuals (often winning decisions of over $1 million), and also sent out letters to many file-sharers at once, offering discount settlements in exchange for a promise never to bring an actual lawsuit against them. While these procedures have been somewhat effective, in the future, we plan to partner with Internet Service Providers and cut off the internet access of offenders.
The justifications offered by proponents of unlawful file sharing are entirely specious. Just like physical products, such as televisions and stereos, music costs money to produce and distribute, and those costs cannot be recouped by means other than music sales. The much ballyhooed “360-deal,” in which a record label receives a percentage of an artist’s touring and merchandise income, is no solution; most major artists refuse to sign them. Thus, we will continue to safeguard the future of the industry by fighting illegal file sharing by any means necessary. Up to now, our options have been limited to litigation: we have sued numerous individuals (often winning decisions of over $1 million), and also sent out letters to many file-sharers at once, offering discount settlements in exchange for a promise never to bring an actual lawsuit against them. While these procedures have been somewhat effective, in the future, we plan to partner with Internet Service Providers and cut off the internet access of offenders.
The trade association representing the record labels has the right to sue people whom they see as illegally downloading music.: Cannot infer disagreement
360 deals signed with a major artist bring the record label more money than traditional contracts.: Cannot infer disagreement
The downloading of a song one doesn’t own is clearly and obviously against the law.: Can infer disagreement
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:
23% (03:07) correct
77%
(03:17)
wrong
based on 385
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
For each of the following issues, select Can infer disagreement if, based on the information provided, it can be inferred that the trade association and the file-sharing website would hold opposing positions on the issue. Otherwise, select Cannot infer disagreement.
| Can infer disagreement | Cannot infer disagreement | |
| The trade association representing the record labels has the right to sue people whom they see as illegally downloading music. | ||
| 360 deals signed with a major artist bring the record label more money than traditional contracts. | ||
| The downloading of a song one doesn’t own is clearly and obviously against the law. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
The trade association representing the record labels has the right to sue people whom they see as illegally downloading music.: Cannot infer disagreement
360 deals signed with a major artist bring the record label more money than traditional contracts.: Cannot infer disagreement
The downloading of a song one doesn’t own is clearly and obviously against the law.: Can infer disagreement
A superfluous entity
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
24% (00:34) correct
76%
(00:33)
wrong
based on 390
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Which of the following comes closest to the intended meaning of the word dinosaur as it is used in the first sentence of the Downloader statement?
| An ancient organization | |
| A superfluous entity | |
| An immoral association | |
| An extinct system | |
| An endangered society |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A superfluous entity
Unlawful downloading is bad for the music business.: Otherwise
Unlawful downloading can be discouraged by litigation.: Otherwise
The financial ramifications of unlawful downloading cannot be mitigated in any practical way.: Otherwise
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
38% (01:10) correct
62%
(01:11)
wrong
based on 299
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
For each of the following statements, select Both accept if, according to the information provided, it can be inferred that both the RIAA and Downloader would likely accept that the statement is true. If not, select Otherwise.
| Both accept | Otherwise | |
| Unlawful downloading is bad for the music business. | ||
| Unlawful downloading can be discouraged by litigation. | ||
| The financial ramifications of unlawful downloading cannot be mitigated in any practical way. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Unlawful downloading is bad for the music business.: Otherwise
Unlawful downloading can be discouraged by litigation.: Otherwise
The financial ramifications of unlawful downloading cannot be mitigated in any practical way.: Otherwise
bhanu29
Joined: 02 Oct 2024
Last visit: 30 Apr 2026
Posts: 363
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 263
Location: India
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
GPA: 9.11
WE:Engineering (Technology)
Products:
Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27
GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86
Posts: 363
Kudos:
276
09 Feb 2026, 00:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
Statement 1: Cannot infer disagreement. Clearly the trade association believes it has the right to sue people who illegally download music, so the question is whether it can be definitively said that the file-sharing website does not. While the attempts to stifle file sharing are described as “lame,” they are never described as unfair, wrong, unjustifiable, or illegal. The file-sharing website believes that the trade association should stop prosecuting file sharers, but only because file sharing is “a blessing for musicians,” not because they don’t have the right to bring lawsuits.
Statement 2: Cannot infer disagreement. This actually is a point that the two representatives agree on. The statement from the file-sharing website says that record labels could capitalize on increased ticket sales caused by the sharing of music online by signing 360 deals, which implies they’d be worth more money than a usual contract. The trade association claims that 360 deals aren’t a viable option for making money, but only because “most major artists refuse to sign them.” The implication is that if the artists did sign the contracts, they would be worth more money.
Statement 3: Can infer disagreement. The key here is the way that the two representatives use the word “illegally.” While the trade association’s statement refers to “fighting illegal file sharing,” the file-sharing website’s statement says “the trade association has fought against the ‘illegal’ downloading of music...” The use of the quotation marks around the word “illegal” implies that the file-sharing website does not clearly and obviously believe that downloading songs from the internet is against the law. The reason for this belief is never actually stated, but the belief itself is enough to prove that the file-sharing website and the trade association disagree.
Quote:
A question that asks about the meaning of a word might be asking for something close to the dictionary definition of the word, and in that case the context would provide that meaning. In other cases, such as this one, the question asks about the idiomatic meaning of a word. A dinosaur is an animal, but that literal meaning is not what the file-sharing website intended. Even in this case, the context will provide the correct interpretation.
In the file-sharing website’s statement, the trade association is described as immoral (“no one batted an eyelash at artist exploitation”), superfluous (“left over from the so-called glory days”) and possibly endangered (“the digital revolution has rendered record labels obsolete”). Eliminate (A) and (D), because the adjectives ancient and extinct do not match descriptions of the trade association from the passage. Note that these two adjectives correctly describe actual dinosaurs. Avoid answer choices that connect to the word in question but not to the passage.
The word dinosaur does not suggest immorality. And, while endangered might seem tempting, the second word of (E), society, is not an accurate description of the trade association. The word dinosaur in the passage is used simply to imply that the trade association has outlived its usefulness, and is thus superfluous.
The correct answer is (B).
Quote:
Statement 1: Otherwise. The trade association believes it is “safeguarding the future of the [music] industry” by attempting to stop illegal downloading. This means it believes that illegal downloading is bad for the industry. The file-sharing website says that websites that encourage file sharing are a “blessing for musicians.” Since musicians are part of the music industry, the file-sharing website would disagree with this statement.
Statement 2: Otherwise. The trade association has already instigated numerous lawsuits and offered many settlements. It is unlikely the association would continue to pursue litigation if it did not believe that litigation would, in some way, discourage unlawful downloading. It also argues that lawsuits have been “somewhat effective.” The file-sharing website describes the trade association’s fight against the illegal downloading of music as both “lame” and “futile”. This implies that the lawsuits cannot ever seriously affect unlawful downloading.
Statement 3: Otherwise. The trade association claims that its lawsuits have been “somewhat effective,” meaning that they have mitigated the financial ramifications in a practical way. The file-sharing website claims that “record labels could capitalize on [increased ticket sales caused by illegal downloading] by signing 360-deals with their artists.” Evidently, the file-sharing website thinks that these deals can mitigate the financial impact of illegal downloading.
10 Feb 2026, 11:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Great question, and the 31% correct rate shows why Multi-Source Reasoning trips people up. Let me walk through the approach for Question 1 (the "Can infer disagreement" question), since that's the one most students find tricky.
Key Concept: MSR "Infer Disagreement" — you must prove BOTH sides hold opposing positions, not just different tones.
The Approach: Read for Position, Not Tone
For each statement, ask yourself: Does Source A say X is true AND Source B say X is false (or vice versa)? Angry tone alone doesn't equal disagreement on a specific claim.
Statement 1: "The trade association has the right to sue people illegally downloading music."
The trade association clearly believes this (they've done it). The file-sharing website calls their lawsuits "lame" — but never says they don't have the right to sue. They argue it's ineffective, not illegitimate.
Cannot infer disagreement.
Statement 2: "360 deals bring more money than traditional contracts."
The file-sharing website suggests record labels should sign 360-deals to capitalize on increased ticket sales — implying they'd be worth more. The trade association says 360-deals don't work because major artists refuse to sign them — but the implication is that if artists signed, they would bring more money. Both actually seem to agree on the value of 360-deals. They disagree on feasibility, not profitability.
Cannot infer disagreement.
Statement 3: "Downloading a song one doesn't own is clearly and obviously against the law."
The trade association refers to "illegal file sharing" — no quotation marks, stated as fact. The file-sharing website puts "illegal" in quotation marks: the "illegal" downloading of music. Those scare quotes signal they don't accept this as a settled legal fact.
Can infer disagreement.
The common trap: Students see two sources with opposing tones and assume they disagree on everything. But MSR questions are surgical — they test whether specific claims are contradicted, not whether the authors dislike each other. Always match the exact wording of the statement against what each source actually says.
Takeaway: On MSR disagreement questions, ignore the overall vibe of each passage and laser-focus on whether each source explicitly or implicitly takes a position on the specific claim being asked about.
Key Concept: MSR "Infer Disagreement" — you must prove BOTH sides hold opposing positions, not just different tones.
The Approach: Read for Position, Not Tone
For each statement, ask yourself: Does Source A say X is true AND Source B say X is false (or vice versa)? Angry tone alone doesn't equal disagreement on a specific claim.
Statement 1: "The trade association has the right to sue people illegally downloading music."
The trade association clearly believes this (they've done it). The file-sharing website calls their lawsuits "lame" — but never says they don't have the right to sue. They argue it's ineffective, not illegitimate.
Cannot infer disagreement.
Statement 2: "360 deals bring more money than traditional contracts."
The file-sharing website suggests record labels should sign 360-deals to capitalize on increased ticket sales — implying they'd be worth more. The trade association says 360-deals don't work because major artists refuse to sign them — but the implication is that if artists signed, they would bring more money. Both actually seem to agree on the value of 360-deals. They disagree on feasibility, not profitability.
Cannot infer disagreement.
Statement 3: "Downloading a song one doesn't own is clearly and obviously against the law."
The trade association refers to "illegal file sharing" — no quotation marks, stated as fact. The file-sharing website puts "illegal" in quotation marks: the "illegal" downloading of music. Those scare quotes signal they don't accept this as a settled legal fact.
Can infer disagreement.
The common trap: Students see two sources with opposing tones and assume they disagree on everything. But MSR questions are surgical — they test whether specific claims are contradicted, not whether the authors dislike each other. Always match the exact wording of the statement against what each source actually says.
Takeaway: On MSR disagreement questions, ignore the overall vibe of each passage and laser-focus on whether each source explicitly or implicitly takes a position on the specific claim being asked about.
