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.
24 Jun 2022, 22:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
ThatDudeKnows since I understand E well and see some merit in it bein correct after getting it wrong, I will take the challenge of telling you why it is wrong so we can go back to C.
Pasaage's conclusion is that it is foolish to hire more police and the premise is that they if they hire more police, they will have to take the burden of paying for additional costs that will come with catching and putting people in to the prison because more cops would mean more catching and hence the assumption is that more cops lead to more catching. E directly attacks that and says that more cops will not lead to more catching and prisons. and hence it is not foolish to hire more plice. I hope this aligns with you so can we please go back to C with the understanding I had given with numerical example ThatDudeKnows
PS I have used some short forms while explaining the scenario so please focus on my broader understanding.
Pasaage's conclusion is that it is foolish to hire more police and the premise is that they if they hire more police, they will have to take the burden of paying for additional costs that will come with catching and putting people in to the prison because more cops would mean more catching and hence the assumption is that more cops lead to more catching. E directly attacks that and says that more cops will not lead to more catching and prisons. and hence it is not foolish to hire more plice. I hope this aligns with you so can we please go back to C with the understanding I had given with numerical example ThatDudeKnows
PS I have used some short forms while explaining the scenario so please focus on my broader understanding.
ThatDudeKnows
avigutman
Thanks. Are you saying that C is saying that IN ORDER TO pay for the additional police officers, the other services will have to be reduced to be able to pay for these police staff and hence reducing other services will not lead to saving money. So given my previous example of 1000 and 500, are we saying that money for these police officers (1000) was not already sufficient from beforehand but IN ORDER TO pay them, we would have to reduce the other services so we are foolish after all? Earlier I had interpreted like we already have 1000 to pay these officers and that the saving will lead to additional 500, let's say, and that won't make our plan foolish. So is my understanding wrong because "will have to reduce" means that they will need to reduce funding of other services to pay for the officers and I interpreted it wrongly as they can reduce other services which will lead to additional savings? So is it something to do with the meaning of tense 'will have to'? Will have to means they will have to do this before using the budget for police officers and not that once budget is approved, this will purposely reduce savings for other services?
Thanks. Are you saying that C is saying that IN ORDER TO pay for the additional police officers, the other services will have to be reduced to be able to pay for these police staff and hence reducing other services will not lead to saving money. So given my previous example of 1000 and 500, are we saying that money for these police officers (1000) was not already sufficient from beforehand but IN ORDER TO pay them, we would have to reduce the other services so we are foolish after all? Earlier I had interpreted like we already have 1000 to pay these officers and that the saving will lead to additional 500, let's say, and that won't make our plan foolish. So is my understanding wrong because "will have to reduce" means that they will need to reduce funding of other services to pay for the officers and I interpreted it wrongly as they can reduce other services which will lead to additional savings? So is it something to do with the meaning of tense 'will have to'? Will have to means they will have to do this before using the budget for police officers and not that once budget is approved, this will purposely reduce savings for other services?
avigutman
24 Jun 2022, 22:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Elite097
There you go! Avi phrased it well in his last post.
