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.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
01 Apr 2019, 23:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
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:
47% (02:41) correct
53%
(02:55)
wrong
based on 372
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term. Moreover, the only language classes being taught next term are advanced ones. So it is untrue that both of the French classes Professor Alban will be teaching next term will be introductory level classes.
The pattern of reasoning displayed in the argument above is most closely paralleled by that in which one of the following arguments?
(A) The Morrison Building will be fully occupied by May and since if a building is occupied by May the new tax rates apply to it, the Morrison Building will be taxed according to the new rates.
(B) The revised tax code does not apply at all to buildings built before 1900, and only the first section of the revised code applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920, so the revised code does not apply to the Norton Building, since it was built in 1873.
(C) All property on Overton Road will be reassessed for tax purposes by the end of the year and the Elnor Company headquarters is on Overton Road, so Elnor's property taxes will be higher next year.
(D) New buildings that include public space are exempt from city taxes for two years and all new buildings in the city's Alton district are exempt for five years, so the building with the large public space that was recently completed in Alton will not be subject to city taxes next year.
(E) Since according to recent statute, a building that is exempt from property taxes is charged for city water at a special rate, and hospitals are exempt from property taxes, Founder's Hospital will be charged for city water at the special rate.
The pattern of reasoning displayed in the argument above is most closely paralleled by that in which one of the following arguments?
(A) The Morrison Building will be fully occupied by May and since if a building is occupied by May the new tax rates apply to it, the Morrison Building will be taxed according to the new rates.
(B) The revised tax code does not apply at all to buildings built before 1900, and only the first section of the revised code applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920, so the revised code does not apply to the Norton Building, since it was built in 1873.
(C) All property on Overton Road will be reassessed for tax purposes by the end of the year and the Elnor Company headquarters is on Overton Road, so Elnor's property taxes will be higher next year.
(D) New buildings that include public space are exempt from city taxes for two years and all new buildings in the city's Alton district are exempt for five years, so the building with the large public space that was recently completed in Alton will not be subject to city taxes next year.
(E) Since according to recent statute, a building that is exempt from property taxes is charged for city water at a special rate, and hospitals are exempt from property taxes, Founder's Hospital will be charged for city water at the special rate.
01 May 2019, 09:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
I was blown away too with this question. Didn't attempt to solve in time. Would love to have feedback on the following thought process Bunuel VeritasKarishma :
Question:
Premise 1 (P1): no one teaches > 1 intro class
Premise 2 (P2): only language class = advanced
Conclusion (C): both class by Prof. XYZ will be intro. is false [in other words: both class by Prof XYZ will not be intro]
here, both P1 and p2 are sufficient independently to draw conclusion.
Same pattern exists only in answer D.
A) P1: Morris. Building fully occupied by May
P2: If building occupied by May = new tax
C: Morris Building new tax rate
[ both premise combined can help draw conclusion]
B) P1: Revised tax code Not applicable to building < 1900
P2: 1st section applicable to building between 1900-1920
C: Norton building (1873) - revised code NA
[ 1st premise alone can help derive conclusion]
c) P1: All property on O. Road - tax reassessed
P2: Elnor HQ on O. Road
C: ELnor's tax higher
[ conclusion only possible by combined P1 and P2, however I'm not sure of higher tax = tax reassessed] suggest plz.
d) P1: New building with public spaces = no taxes for 2 yrs
P2: All new building in alton district - no taxes for 5 yrs
C : building (with large public space) in alton = no tax next year
[ Correct: both p1 and p2 are sufficient independently to draw conclusion hence correct]
e) P1: building with no tax = water Special rate
P2: hospital has no tax
C: F. hospital = water Special rate
[ P1 sufficient for conclusion ]
Question:
Premise 1 (P1): no one teaches > 1 intro class
Premise 2 (P2): only language class = advanced
Conclusion (C): both class by Prof. XYZ will be intro. is false [in other words: both class by Prof XYZ will not be intro]
here, both P1 and p2 are sufficient independently to draw conclusion.
Same pattern exists only in answer D.
A) P1: Morris. Building fully occupied by May
P2: If building occupied by May = new tax
C: Morris Building new tax rate
[ both premise combined can help draw conclusion]
B) P1: Revised tax code Not applicable to building < 1900
P2: 1st section applicable to building between 1900-1920
C: Norton building (1873) - revised code NA
[ 1st premise alone can help derive conclusion]
c) P1: All property on O. Road - tax reassessed
P2: Elnor HQ on O. Road
C: ELnor's tax higher
[ conclusion only possible by combined P1 and P2, however I'm not sure of higher tax = tax reassessed] suggest plz.
d) P1: New building with public spaces = no taxes for 2 yrs
P2: All new building in alton district - no taxes for 5 yrs
C : building (with large public space) in alton = no tax next year
[ Correct: both p1 and p2 are sufficient independently to draw conclusion hence correct]
e) P1: building with no tax = water Special rate
P2: hospital has no tax
C: F. hospital = water Special rate
[ P1 sufficient for conclusion ]
General Discussion
12 Nov 2020, 22:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
1st, this is an LSAT question and would probably be in the upper stratosphere of the tougher questions on the GMAT
2nd, if a question like this pops up, what I try to do is to analyze each fact and see how it relates to what the author is concluding.
Conclusion: “professor will not be teaching 2 introductory classes next term”
Why?
Fact 1: no one in his department can teach more than 1 intro. classes next term. The thing that stands out the most is that this fact alone makes the conclusion almost ironclad. If no one is allowed to teach more than 1 intro class in the French department, then how can this professor.
Fact 2: the only classes being taught next term are advanced ones. Ignoring the other fact, Fact 2 ALONE makes the conclusion pretty bulletproof.
So basically the author is providing 2 facts which, each on their own, are sufficient to support the conclusion and make it pretty bullet proof.
We want an answer in which there is a conclusion based on 2 separate facts, each of which is enough by itself to solidly prove the Conclusion.
If you look at Answer D, TWO separate facts/reasons are provided to prove that they will not pay the tax next year.
The only answer that comes close to this kind of structure is Answer Choice B. However, the 2nd Fact provided is irrelevant to the Conclusion. It does not, by itself, show that they are tax exempt.
If we took the 2nd fact by itself: only the first section applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920. Does this fact all by itself provide us with a pretty bulletproof reason to say that the building built in 1876 is tax exempt? No, because ignoring the other fact, we do not know if there are other sections in the new revised tax code that might apply to this building. Without the 1st fact, we do not have a 2nd fact that proves the conclusion solidly on its own.
Again, this is a hard LSAT type question.....
Posted from my mobile device
2nd, if a question like this pops up, what I try to do is to analyze each fact and see how it relates to what the author is concluding.
Conclusion: “professor will not be teaching 2 introductory classes next term”
Why?
Fact 1: no one in his department can teach more than 1 intro. classes next term. The thing that stands out the most is that this fact alone makes the conclusion almost ironclad. If no one is allowed to teach more than 1 intro class in the French department, then how can this professor.
Fact 2: the only classes being taught next term are advanced ones. Ignoring the other fact, Fact 2 ALONE makes the conclusion pretty bulletproof.
So basically the author is providing 2 facts which, each on their own, are sufficient to support the conclusion and make it pretty bullet proof.
We want an answer in which there is a conclusion based on 2 separate facts, each of which is enough by itself to solidly prove the Conclusion.
If you look at Answer D, TWO separate facts/reasons are provided to prove that they will not pay the tax next year.
The only answer that comes close to this kind of structure is Answer Choice B. However, the 2nd Fact provided is irrelevant to the Conclusion. It does not, by itself, show that they are tax exempt.
If we took the 2nd fact by itself: only the first section applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920. Does this fact all by itself provide us with a pretty bulletproof reason to say that the building built in 1876 is tax exempt? No, because ignoring the other fact, we do not know if there are other sections in the new revised tax code that might apply to this building. Without the 1st fact, we do not have a 2nd fact that proves the conclusion solidly on its own.
Again, this is a hard LSAT type question.....
Posted from my mobile device
