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.
Aug 0312:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Starting 8/3, save up to $1,000 on select GMAT prep. Achieve your b-school goals this fall with Manhattan Prep.
Aug 0512:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
50% off all study plans with code ADVANCE - Expires Monday 8/10
Aug 0710:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 745+ score.
Aug 0810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Many GMAT aspirants don't struggle because they lack ability—they struggle because they're trying to fix the wrong problems. Tejas experienced this firsthand. Despite taking the GMAT three times, he remained stuck at 645.
Aug 1008:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon/Wed August 10, 2026 - Oct. 14, 2026, 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Aug 1410:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Top Scores Start with a Elite Online Prep Course. Enroll for 6 months of access to over 400 hours of GMAT video lessons AND 715+ Score Guarantee!- Aug 15
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 15th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PST
24 Apr 2025, 23:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Whenever CR questions have a conclusion about increase or decrease in some quantity, I try to split that quantity into its factors. This has helped me increase my accuracy considerably, although the timing takes a small hit. Was able to complete this in 3 minutes during mock. I know it’s a lot, but I recovered in some other questions.This is how I approached this question (hope it helps someone) -
Conclusion - the arrangement would profit the provincial government
My per-thinking -
Incoming calls today = 100
Subsidy per call = Re.1
Amount received by provincial govt = 100
After the arrangement -
Routed calls (honestly, I thought of this as ‘incoming’ initially) = 1000
Splitted subsidy for the government = 0.2 Rs
Amount received by provincial government = 200
Okay, so this is how the corporation is saying that the government would profit.
Assumptions - (factors) -
1. Significant increase in number of calls
2. Something around substantial split rate, in accordance to the overall increase in calls.
Hindsight note - Although both the assumptions above are not part of the right answer, but it helped me understand the stimulus in better detail.
Moving onto POE.
A. Charges to callers without the plan, doesn’t affect my conclusion, ie, inc in profit. Moreover, I lost a little confidence in this choice as soon as I read without the plan. In general, the correct choice talks about a necessary assumption, with the plan. Eliminate.
B. Well, okay, this is new. If the subsidy doesn’t apply to routed calls, then this means no increase in the number of calls (first assumption). Keep for now.
C. Interested. Hmm, words like interest, prefer, et cetera need special attention. Anyway, this choice is about- Why would the government be interested in splitting the subsidy? While our conclusion is about what happens when they decide to split it. What made them interested in the first place cannot be a necessary assumption.
Moreover, the government might have had some other interests as well. But if eventually, the plan is not profitable for the government, their initial interests are pointless. Eliminate.
D. Calculation of subsidy, does it affect the conclusion?.... Woah! Wait. After the implementation of the plan, the charges to callers are 0. Then nobody gets any profit. An assumption supports the conclusion, doesn’t destroy it. Eliminate.
E. This is not necessary as seen in the second assumption above. (Thank God something from pre thinking saved me some time here).
Conclusion - the arrangement would profit the provincial government
My per-thinking -
Incoming calls today = 100
Subsidy per call = Re.1
Amount received by provincial govt = 100
After the arrangement -
Routed calls (honestly, I thought of this as ‘incoming’ initially) = 1000
Splitted subsidy for the government = 0.2 Rs
Amount received by provincial government = 200
Okay, so this is how the corporation is saying that the government would profit.
Assumptions - (factors) -
1. Significant increase in number of calls
2. Something around substantial split rate, in accordance to the overall increase in calls.
Hindsight note - Although both the assumptions above are not part of the right answer, but it helped me understand the stimulus in better detail.
Moving onto POE.
A. Charges to callers without the plan, doesn’t affect my conclusion, ie, inc in profit. Moreover, I lost a little confidence in this choice as soon as I read without the plan. In general, the correct choice talks about a necessary assumption, with the plan. Eliminate.
B. Well, okay, this is new. If the subsidy doesn’t apply to routed calls, then this means no increase in the number of calls (first assumption). Keep for now.
C. Interested. Hmm, words like interest, prefer, et cetera need special attention. Anyway, this choice is about- Why would the government be interested in splitting the subsidy? While our conclusion is about what happens when they decide to split it. What made them interested in the first place cannot be a necessary assumption.
Moreover, the government might have had some other interests as well. But if eventually, the plan is not profitable for the government, their initial interests are pointless. Eliminate.
D. Calculation of subsidy, does it affect the conclusion?.... Woah! Wait. After the implementation of the plan, the charges to callers are 0. Then nobody gets any profit. An assumption supports the conclusion, doesn’t destroy it. Eliminate.
E. This is not necessary as seen in the second assumption above. (Thank God something from pre thinking saved me some time here).
30 May 2025, 06:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Agree with what Marty said above, not a very straightforward question. The trick of this question is to notice the difference between a phone call that [goes into the province] vs [goes through the province]. But one could even argue that if a phone calls is routed through the province, a.k.a goes through the province, it needs to [go into the province] first. Fortunately eliminating the other four is easier than making sense of B.
01 Jun 2025, 13:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
The corporation's argument is that the provincial government would "profit greatly" because "all calls would be routed through the province," leading to a large increase in the subsidy received.
Let's break down why option B is the crucial assumption:
The core of the corporation's argument: The corporation says the provincial government will profit because all calls would be routed through the province, and the provincial government gets a subsidy for long-distance calls "going into the province."
The problem: If the subsidy only applies to calls terminating in the province, and the corporation's plan routes all long-distance calls (even those just passing through) through the province, then the provincial government would only get a subsidy for the calls actually going into the province, not for the massive increase in calls just passing through.
The necessary assumption: For the provincial government to "profit greatly" from all calls being routed through the province, the national government's subsidy must apply not just to calls terminating in the province, but also to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province. Without this, the increased call volume due to routing wouldn't translate into increased subsidy for the provincial government.
Let's look at why the other options are not the primary assumption:
A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers. While this might be true and makes the "no charge" aspect attractive, it doesn't directly relate to how the provincial government would profit from the subsidy based on routing.
C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province. This is a reasonable expectation for the provincial government, but it's an assumption about the provincial government's motivation, not about how the corporation's plan would actually generate the predicted profit from the subsidy mechanism. The corporation's argument is that it will be profitable.
D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller. The problem states the corporation would offer calls "without any charge to the callers." If the subsidy is a fixed percentage of the charge, and the charge is zero, then the subsidy would also be zero. This would undermine the corporation's argument, making it an assumption that would work against their claim of profit, not for it.
E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation. This is a basic economic principle of profitability, but it's a general truth about profit, not the specific assumption underlying the corporation's claim that the routing of calls would lead to significant profits from the subsidy. The corporation's argument is about how the revenue (subsidy) would increase.
The final answer is
B
Let's break down why option B is the crucial assumption:
The core of the corporation's argument: The corporation says the provincial government will profit because all calls would be routed through the province, and the provincial government gets a subsidy for long-distance calls "going into the province."
The problem: If the subsidy only applies to calls terminating in the province, and the corporation's plan routes all long-distance calls (even those just passing through) through the province, then the provincial government would only get a subsidy for the calls actually going into the province, not for the massive increase in calls just passing through.
The necessary assumption: For the provincial government to "profit greatly" from all calls being routed through the province, the national government's subsidy must apply not just to calls terminating in the province, but also to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province. Without this, the increased call volume due to routing wouldn't translate into increased subsidy for the provincial government.
Let's look at why the other options are not the primary assumption:
A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers. While this might be true and makes the "no charge" aspect attractive, it doesn't directly relate to how the provincial government would profit from the subsidy based on routing.
C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province. This is a reasonable expectation for the provincial government, but it's an assumption about the provincial government's motivation, not about how the corporation's plan would actually generate the predicted profit from the subsidy mechanism. The corporation's argument is that it will be profitable.
D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller. The problem states the corporation would offer calls "without any charge to the callers." If the subsidy is a fixed percentage of the charge, and the charge is zero, then the subsidy would also be zero. This would undermine the corporation's argument, making it an assumption that would work against their claim of profit, not for it.
E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation. This is a basic economic principle of profitability, but it's a general truth about profit, not the specific assumption underlying the corporation's claim that the routing of calls would lead to significant profits from the subsidy. The corporation's argument is about how the revenue (subsidy) would increase.
The final answer is
B
