GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

It is currently 26 May 2018, 20:35

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 243
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2014, 05:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:40) correct 31% (01:47) wrong based on 591 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4669
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2014, 16:23
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

Dear TooLong150,
I'm happy to answer, because I wrote this question as well. :-)

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
So, the warning light comes on only when the plans are headed toward each other head-on. Perhaps the detector is right at the front of the plane, or something like that. This means, planes flying side-by-side, roughly parallel, would not set off the warning light. This means planes could get very close to each other, almost right next to each other, such that the slightly change in direction by either one would cause them to collide, and all the while, the warning light would not come on. This contradicts the Aviation Analyst's argument, because the two side-by-side planes could be dangerously close and the warning light would not come on. Of course, this category of crash might be uncommon, but even so, it points out a hole in the Aviation Analyst's logic, and is thus a weakener.

Does this make sense, or do you have more questions?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2014
Posts: 7
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2014, 17:34
mikemcgarry wrote:
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.

Dear TooLong150,
I'm happy to answer, because I wrote this question as well. :-)

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
So, the warning light comes on only when the plans are headed toward each other head-on. Perhaps the detector is right at the front of the plane, or something like that. This means, planes flying side-by-side, roughly parallel, would not set off the warning light. This means planes could get very close to each other, almost right next to each other, such that the slightly change in direction by either one would cause them to collide, and all the while, the warning light would not come on. This contradicts the Aviation Analyst's argument, because the two side-by-side planes could be dangerously close and the warning light would not come on. Of course, this category of crash might be uncommon, but even so, it points out a hole in the Aviation Analyst's logic, and is thus a weakener.

Does this make sense, or do you have more questions?
Mike :-)


Hi Mike,

I narrowed it down to A and C but ended up with C (my reasoning being similar to yours). My thinking for cancelling A was because it was a specific scenario and not a general case. Am i correct thinking this way? Sorry if this is kind of redundant but i ALWAYS end up with 2 answer choices for questions such as these and tend to choose the wrong ones 30-40% of the time.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4669
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2014, 18:27
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
w1ck3d64 wrote:
Hi Mike,

I narrowed it down to A and C but ended up with C (my reasoning being similar to yours). My thinking for cancelling A was because it was a specific scenario and not a general case. Am i correct thinking this way? Sorry if this is kind of redundant but i ALWAYS end up with 2 answer choices for questions such as these and tend to choose the wrong ones 30-40% of the time.

Dear w1ck3d64,
Well, there are a few problems with (A). One of them, as you say --- it's a one-off specific case; any bizarre exceptional thing could happen in a one-off special case. Secondly, we don't know that these planes were the DC-10's with the warning light installed: they could have been any two planes, Air Transylvania or whatever. Finally, when were the warning lights installed? Recently. When did this near collision happen? Recently. Did it happen before or after the DC-10's had warning lights installed? We have no way of knowing. If it happened before the warning lights were even installed, then it certainly doesn't constitute an objection to the efficacy of the warning lights. All this uncertainty means that (A) is not a particular effect objection. That's why it's out.

GMAT CR questions are often written so that wrong answers are tempting. For example, one tempting strategy this answer choice used was a general statement about "two planes", without any indication that the planes were the kind of planes discussed in the prompt. The prompt was about a very specific model of plane, not planes in general. The more you can watch details such as this, the more you will be able to eliminate tempting wrong answers.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8079
Location: Pune, India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2014, 23:36
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
TooLong150 wrote:
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.


The question is quite straight forward if you keep your eye on the conclusion:

Conclusion: If the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

We have to weaken it. That is, we have to establish that red light could be off and still there could be another plane less than three mins flying time away from this plane.
(A) is irrelevant to our conclusion.
(C) weakens the conclusion.
(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
If anti collision device ignores planes flying parallel, the light could be off but there could be a plane flying parallel to this one which could be less than 3 mins flying time away.

Answer (C)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 338
Schools: Schulich '16
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Mar 2014, 02:51
Hi,

I narrowed down to B and C. but finally picked b.

is B wrong just because there wont be any collison but onboard injuries? We aren't concerned about board injuries as of now , only the collisons...right???

Or The argument mentions 3 minutes is suffcient to manuver.


-h
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8079
Location: Pune, India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Mar 2014, 09:02
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
hsbinfy wrote:
Hi,

I narrowed down to B and C. but finally picked b.

is B wrong just because there wont be any collison but onboard injuries? We aren't concerned about board injuries as of now , only the collisons...right???

Or The argument mentions 3 minutes is suffcient to manuver.


-h


When we strengthen/weaken an argument, we need to strengthen/weaken the conclusion.
Here the conclusion says "If the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane."

Whether 3 mins is enough time to maneuver is none of our concern. We only want know that when the light is off, is the plane at least 3 mins away from every other plane?
(C) tells us that it may not be and hence our conclusion is weakened.

Focus on the conclusion.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 250
Location: India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2014, 10:42
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Went with C as its. The best weakener from the choices.
A is talking about air traffic controllers and 1.5 minutes which is irrelevant to the argument.
B is too weak itself to weaken the argument:it has 'in certain cases' and 'may be'.
In D,okay the. Lights don't turn on simultaneously.they might turn on with a very little (negligible) time diff.
In E how is it weakening?It is merely saying that there might be other models having the equipment.So it's good of other models have it and it works.But this isn't weakening the conclusion that 'if red light is off,the plane is necessarily 3 min away from another one.
Only C weakens the conclusion by saying that if a plAne might be parallel and therefore very close to another (less than 3 min close)DC-10 and still the red light won't go on.

Posted from my mobile device
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 73
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2014, 07:52
1
This post received
KUDOS
Actually the explanation to justify answer choice 'C' is flawed (in my opinion). The answer choice 'C' is incorrectly worded to say parallel..technically speaking parallel means the planes will never collide...so in that case you wouldn't need the detectors at all...if the answer choice would have specifically said side-by-side then ans choice 'C' would have made sense...anyway this is my 2-cents worth...
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4669
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2014, 10:58
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
p2bhokie wrote:
Actually the explanation to justify answer choice 'C' is flawed (in my opinion). The answer choice 'C' is incorrectly worded to say parallel..technically speaking parallel means the planes will never collide...so in that case you wouldn't need the detectors at all...if the answer choice would have specifically said side-by-side then ans choice 'C' would have made sense...anyway this is my 2-cents worth...

Dear p2bhokie,
With all due respect, my friend, you are confusing mathematics with the real world. In mathematics, for example, in geometry, we only use the word "parallel" to denote absolutely strictly parallel; if two lines are even a millionth of a degree off from being parallel, then in geometry they are not parallel.
In the real world, two planes "flying in parallel" mean two planes flying in more or less the same direction, more or less side-by-side. This is a rough, approximate term, not the rigorously precise term we find in geometry. Arguably, it would impossible for planes (or anything in the real world) to be perfectly mathematically parallel. Planes flying "in parallel" may be gradually approaching or receding. Nothing in real life has the same degree of rigor that we find only in the abstract precision of mathematics.
Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 202
Location: India
Schools: IIMC (A)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 2.6
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Reviews Badge
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2014, 03:07
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?

(A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers. - Thought a near collision was averted by prompt actions of ATC, it would not call into question anti-collision device, since this was a single incidence and we don't have the details of the incidence

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries. - It might have called the device into question, had the sentence mentioned Collision and not injuries. This becomes out of scope

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel. - Aaaahhh... What if the planes are near parallel ? They might collide and the device won't warn. - This could be a good choice

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously. - Even if one of the planes is alerted, the collision can be averted.

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device. - This would just mean that only DC-10 planes are collision-safe - Out of scope

Hope this helps
_________________

Give KUDOS if the post helps you... :-D

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 10
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2015, 23:29
mikemcgarry Hey mike what's wrong with D. We have to weaken the conclusion which says If red light is off our plane has more than 3 mins of distance with other plane. But if lights of plane on at different time then the plane whose light on later will have less than 3 mins. thus it will weaken conclusion too.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4669
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2015, 10:06
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
jaskarn singh wrote:
mikemcgarry Hey mike what's wrong with D. We have to weaken the conclusion which says If red light is off our plane has more than 3 mins of distance with other plane. But if lights of plane on at different time then the plane whose light on later will have less than 3 mins. thus it will weaken conclusion too.

Dear jaskarn singh,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

Here's the prompt again. Notice the highlights.
To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro Jets Inc. has recently installed each of its DC-10 passenger planes with a special anti-collision device. The device alerts the DC-10, via a red light, when another plane is slightly more than three minutes away from a potential collision. Aviation experts at Miro Jet Inc. have determined that three minutes is ample time for a plane to divert its respective flight paths to avoid a collision. Therefore, if the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane.

Which of the following, if true, most fundamentally calls into question the aviation analyst’s argument?


Now, here's (D).
(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously.

Remember, GMAT CR, we have to assume that premises given in the prompt are true. Notice, the prompt doesn't say that the lights go on when the two planes are EXACTLY three minutes away. No, instead, the lights go on when the planes are "slightly more" than 3 minutes away. What does this mean?
Suppose Planes X & Y are approaching each other. When the planes are 3:05 away from each other, the red light goes on in Plane X. When the planes are 3:02 away from each other, the red light goes on in Plane Y. Thus:
(a) in both planes, the light goes on slightly before 3 minutes away
(b) the lights do not turn on simultaneously in the two aircrafts
(c) by the time the two planes are exactly 3 minutes apart, both have the red light on.
Thus, the conclusion is not threatened at all by answer choice (D), as long as we don't change any of the premises.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 163
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Aug 2016, 09:39
DC 10: Spl. A.C.D. -> ↓coll (+)
A.C.D. = alert 3 mins. (+)
3 mins. enuf (+)
lght off = >3 mins away (c) [faulty?]

A - talks what happened when <3mins. Doesn't weaken the concl.
B - talks about 3 mins not enuf. may be faulty? Keep this one in
C - So, light off does nt necessarily mean planes> 3 mins away (keep it for now)
D & E - No relevance to argument

B -> but enuf to avoid collision. So A.C.D. do avoid coll + option does not attack light off.
Ans C
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 265
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2018, 10:53
I use POE method. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously. -> OFS

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8079
Location: Pune, India
Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2018, 02:01
aaba wrote:
I use POE method. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

A) Recently, a near collision in which both planes were less than 90 seconds flying distance from each other was averted only by the prompt actions of air traffic controllers.

(B) Some aviation experts warn that in certain cases three minutes may not provide sufficient time for aircrafts to maneuver without causing onboard injuries.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.

(D) When two DC-10’s approach each other the red lights on each aircraft do not necessarily turn on simultaneously. -> OFS

(E) The DC-10 is not the only aircraft model to have been installed with the anti-collision device.

Please explain why the OA directly weakens the conclusion.


When we strengthen/weaken an argument, we need to strengthen/weaken the conclusion.
Here the conclusion says "If the red light on the anti-collision device is off, the DC-10 is more than three minutes flying time from any plane."

We have to weaken it. That is, we have to establish that red light could be off and still there could be another plane less than three mins flying time away from this plane.

(C) The anti-collision device only signals planes of oncoming directions, not those planes that are flying in parallel.
If anti collision device ignores planes flying parallel, the light could be off but there could be a plane flying parallel to this one which could be less than 3 mins flying time away. It is not necessary that DC-10 is more than 3 mins flying time from any plane. Hence our conclusion is weakened.

Focus on the conclusion.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro   [#permalink] 29 Jan 2018, 02:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by

To combat human error involved in air traffic control, Miro

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.