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 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
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 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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.
31 Dec 2019, 11:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
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:
50% (02:43) correct
50%
(02:53)
wrong
based on 245
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Teacher: Journalists who conceal the identity of the sources they quote stake their professional reputations on what may be called the logic of anecdotes. This is so because the statements reported by such journalists are dissociated from the precise circumstances in which they were made and thus will be accepted for publication only if the statements are high in plausibility or originality or interest to a given audience - precisely the properties of a good anecdote.
Student: But what you are saying, then, is that the journalist need not bother with sources in the first place. Surely, any reasonably resourceful journalist can invent plausible, original, or interesting stories faster than they can be obtained from unidentified sources.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the teacher's argument?
(A) A journalist undermines his or her own professional standing by submitting for publication statements that, not being attributed to a named source, are rejected for being implausible, unoriginal, or dull.
(B) Statements that are attributed to a fully identified source make up the majority of reported statements included by journalists in stories submitted for publication.
(C) Reported statements that are highly original will often seem implausible unless submitted by a journalist who is known for solid, reliable work.
(D) Reputable journalists sometimes do not conceal the identity of their sources from their publishers but insist that the identity of those sources be concealed from the public.
(E) Journalists who have special access to sources whose identity they must conceal are greatly valued by their publishers.
31 Dec 2019, 12:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
The main assumption here is that being accepted for a publication that is highly anecdotal actually has something to do with one's professional reputation. We have to strengthen this idea.
(A) Deals with "professional standing" (aka, professional reputation) and unattributed sources. This looks good. Keep.
(B) We don't care about "fully identified" sources. We care only about those journalists who are dealing with unidentified sources. Eliminate.
(C) Do we know if this journalist is "known for solid, reliable work?" However, the bigger problem is that we don't care about the overlap between original statements and implausibility. Eliminate.
(D) This is just like (B) at first so we can eliminate it immediately - we want to know about journalists who DO conceal the identity of their sources. Also, this has nothing to do with professional standing anyway. Eliminate.
(E) They might be "greatly valued by their publishers" but does this have to do with staking one's professional reputation? In addition, this might actually weaken the argument because the reputation wouldn't necessarily be "at stake" as much as it would be made better.
(A) is the last one standing. If rejected for publication --> undermines professional standing. Looks good.
(A) Deals with "professional standing" (aka, professional reputation) and unattributed sources. This looks good. Keep.
(B) We don't care about "fully identified" sources. We care only about those journalists who are dealing with unidentified sources. Eliminate.
(C) Do we know if this journalist is "known for solid, reliable work?" However, the bigger problem is that we don't care about the overlap between original statements and implausibility. Eliminate.
(D) This is just like (B) at first so we can eliminate it immediately - we want to know about journalists who DO conceal the identity of their sources. Also, this has nothing to do with professional standing anyway. Eliminate.
(E) They might be "greatly valued by their publishers" but does this have to do with staking one's professional reputation? In addition, this might actually weaken the argument because the reputation wouldn't necessarily be "at stake" as much as it would be made better.
(A) is the last one standing. If rejected for publication --> undermines professional standing. Looks good.
