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 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 2212:30 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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
27 Jul 2019, 07:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
56% (02:16) correct
44%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 1583
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Sports psychologist: Competing against other athletes can have a positive effect on athletic performance, even when the outcome of the competition is inconsequential. Two groups of amateur cyclists adhered to the same training program, but members of one group were provided with objective data on their performance and the performance of the other group members, while the second group was given no information. The cyclists who were able to compare themselves to other group members had a significantly greater average improvement in strength and speed during the program than those who were given no data.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologist’s interpretation of the study?
A. Athletes who frequently compete against others are more likely to adhere closely to a training program than those who rarely or never compete.
B. When members of a third group of cyclists were provided with data on their own performance but not on that of other group members, they performed no better than those who received no data.
C. Cyclists in the study who scored higher on psychological tests of competitiveness performed better on the fitness tests than those who earned low scores.
D. Stronger amateur cyclists are more likely than weaker cyclists to choose to participate in competitions.
E. All cyclists in the group that was given data improved their performance significantly during the training program, while several cyclists in the group that was given no data failed to improve at all.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologist’s interpretation of the study?
A. Athletes who frequently compete against others are more likely to adhere closely to a training program than those who rarely or never compete.
B. When members of a third group of cyclists were provided with data on their own performance but not on that of other group members, they performed no better than those who received no data.
C. Cyclists in the study who scored higher on psychological tests of competitiveness performed better on the fitness tests than those who earned low scores.
D. Stronger amateur cyclists are more likely than weaker cyclists to choose to participate in competitions.
E. All cyclists in the group that was given data improved their performance significantly during the training program, while several cyclists in the group that was given no data failed to improve at all.
27 Jul 2019, 07:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
(1) Identify the Question
The question asks for an answer that strongly supports the psychologist’s statement. Therefore, this is a Strengthen the Argument problem.
(2) Deconstruct the Argument
The argument describes two groups of cyclists who participated in a study. The groups trained in the same way, but members of one group saw data that let them compare themselves against others, and the other group saw no data. Since the first group improved more, the psychologist has concluded that competing against others must have had a positive effect on those cyclists.
Here is one possible way to map the argument.
grp 1: data on self & others
grp 2: no data
grp 1 improved more
© competition helps performance
(3) State the Goal
In a Strengthen the Argument problem, the goal is to find the answer choice that makes the conclusion more likely to be correct. In this case, the right answer will suggest that the performance effect shown in the studies was, in fact, due to competition.
(4) Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This answer suggests that competition causes athletes to train more diligently. In the real world, it would make sense to conclude, based on this, that competition improves performance. However, there isn’t necessarily a link between sticking to a training program and better performance. Also, the question asks about the psychologist’s interpretation of this particular study. In this study, all of the athletes adhered to the same training program, so the effect couldn’t have been caused by a difference in adherence.
(B) CORRECT. One possible objection to the argument is that cyclists in the first group may have improved because they saw their own data, in which case their improvement would have had nothing to do with competition against the rest of the group. This answer choice negates that objection by showing that seeing the data of the rest of the group was necessary. Given choice (B), it is more likely that competing against the group—not just having personal data—caused the improvement.
(C) This answer refers to competitiveness, while the psychologist’s conclusion attributes the effect to actually competing against other athletes. Even if competitiveness improves performance, the act of competing may or may not have an impact. Also, the study examined a performance improvement among one group of cyclists, not an overall higher performance. Even if some cyclists had a stronger performance overall, they may not have improved during the program, and the psychologist’s conclusion would not apply to them.
(D) If stronger cyclists are more likely than weaker cyclists to compete, then this is an alternative explanation for why competing cyclists appear to be stronger. This would make the psychologist’s explanation less likely, not more likely, to be correct. Furthermore, the cyclists in the study chose only to participate in a training program, but did not choose whether to get data that could be used to compete. An answer about choosing to compete isn’t relevant to the cyclists observed.
(E) This answer further explains the degree to which one group of cyclists improved more than the other. However, the psychologist draws a conclusion about why one group improved more than the other, not whether or how much that group improved. This choice does not make it more likely that the psychologist is correct about the cause of the improvement.
KUDOS PLEASE
(1) Identify the Question
The question asks for an answer that strongly supports the psychologist’s statement. Therefore, this is a Strengthen the Argument problem.
(2) Deconstruct the Argument
The argument describes two groups of cyclists who participated in a study. The groups trained in the same way, but members of one group saw data that let them compare themselves against others, and the other group saw no data. Since the first group improved more, the psychologist has concluded that competing against others must have had a positive effect on those cyclists.
Here is one possible way to map the argument.
grp 1: data on self & others
grp 2: no data
grp 1 improved more
© competition helps performance
(3) State the Goal
In a Strengthen the Argument problem, the goal is to find the answer choice that makes the conclusion more likely to be correct. In this case, the right answer will suggest that the performance effect shown in the studies was, in fact, due to competition.
(4) Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This answer suggests that competition causes athletes to train more diligently. In the real world, it would make sense to conclude, based on this, that competition improves performance. However, there isn’t necessarily a link between sticking to a training program and better performance. Also, the question asks about the psychologist’s interpretation of this particular study. In this study, all of the athletes adhered to the same training program, so the effect couldn’t have been caused by a difference in adherence.
(B) CORRECT. One possible objection to the argument is that cyclists in the first group may have improved because they saw their own data, in which case their improvement would have had nothing to do with competition against the rest of the group. This answer choice negates that objection by showing that seeing the data of the rest of the group was necessary. Given choice (B), it is more likely that competing against the group—not just having personal data—caused the improvement.
(C) This answer refers to competitiveness, while the psychologist’s conclusion attributes the effect to actually competing against other athletes. Even if competitiveness improves performance, the act of competing may or may not have an impact. Also, the study examined a performance improvement among one group of cyclists, not an overall higher performance. Even if some cyclists had a stronger performance overall, they may not have improved during the program, and the psychologist’s conclusion would not apply to them.
(D) If stronger cyclists are more likely than weaker cyclists to compete, then this is an alternative explanation for why competing cyclists appear to be stronger. This would make the psychologist’s explanation less likely, not more likely, to be correct. Furthermore, the cyclists in the study chose only to participate in a training program, but did not choose whether to get data that could be used to compete. An answer about choosing to compete isn’t relevant to the cyclists observed.
(E) This answer further explains the degree to which one group of cyclists improved more than the other. However, the psychologist draws a conclusion about why one group improved more than the other, not whether or how much that group improved. This choice does not make it more likely that the psychologist is correct about the cause of the improvement.
KUDOS PLEASE
19 May 2020, 13:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
To find the correct answer to strengthen questions it is often usefull to think about the argument's leap in logic and its potential weak points.
First let's focus on the argument's main point. Here the main point is represented by a principle. If cyclists (athlets) are able to compare their data with competitors they will improve their performance.
Competing against other athletes can have a positive effect on athletic performance, even when the outcome of the competition is inconsequential.... The cyclists who were able to compare themselves to other group members had a significantly greater average improvement in strength and speed during the program than those who were given no data
Boil the argument down: Cyclists comparing their data --> improvements in perfomance
Ok. Fine. But what if there was an alternate cause to that? What if a group of cyclists who did not compare their data with others improved their performance anyway?
Correct strengthen answers usually eliminate the argument's weak points. After prethinking on the argument, let's focus on the answer choices.
A) Athletes who frequently compete against others are more likely to adhere closely to a training program than those who rarely or never compete. OUT OF SCOPE. This does not have any impact on the argument. We do not care about adhering or not to training programs and we are not supposed to believe that adhering could improve the athlets' performance.
B) When members of a third group of cyclists were provided with data on their own performance but not on that of other group members, they performed no better than those who received no data. BINGO. This answer choice directly supports the principle that we have just derived from the argument's conclusion. This answer shows us that when athlets are not able to compare their data with others they do not improve their performance. Hence it strengthen the initial principle according to which comparing data leads to improvements in performance. It does that by eliminating any alternate cause.
C) Cyclists in the study who scored higher on psychological tests of competitiveness performed better on the fitness tests than those who earned low scores. OUT OF SCOPE. We are not concerned about psychological tests and the argument never talks about those.
D) Stronger amateur cyclists are more likely than weaker cyclists to choose to participate in competitions. OUT OF SCOPE. The argument does not point out any meaningful info about actually participating into competitions. In fact, it states that the positive results in performance come "even when the outcome of the competition is inconsequential".
E) All cyclists in the group that was given data improved their performance significantly during the training program, while several cyclists in the group that was given no data failed to improve at all. CLOSE. This is our contender. The trick with choice E is paying attention to the exact wording.
at all represents extreme vocabulary. Are we actually concerned about how less does the second group improve compared to the first? No.
Moreover, note the answer choice E is not telling us anything new. This answer choice IS NOT telling us that ALL the cyclists in the first group improved their performance (which could slightly strengthen the argument by contrasting the fact that among the ones who compared their data there could have been someone who nonetheless did not improve his or her performance). This answer choice is just telling us that all cyclists in the group "that was given data improved their performance" improved their performance. The argument already says that by stating:
After all, answer choice E might be tempting, but if you are willing to spend those 20 more seconds on a tough question like this one, you will be able to detect the flaw on the contender and to be sure of selecting the right answer choice.
Please, consider kudos if you liked my explanation.
Cheers!
First let's focus on the argument's main point. Here the main point is represented by a principle. If cyclists (athlets) are able to compare their data with competitors they will improve their performance.
Competing against other athletes can have a positive effect on athletic performance, even when the outcome of the competition is inconsequential.... The cyclists who were able to compare themselves to other group members had a significantly greater average improvement in strength and speed during the program than those who were given no data
Boil the argument down: Cyclists comparing their data --> improvements in perfomance
Ok. Fine. But what if there was an alternate cause to that? What if a group of cyclists who did not compare their data with others improved their performance anyway?
Correct strengthen answers usually eliminate the argument's weak points. After prethinking on the argument, let's focus on the answer choices.
A) Athletes who frequently compete against others are more likely to adhere closely to a training program than those who rarely or never compete. OUT OF SCOPE. This does not have any impact on the argument. We do not care about adhering or not to training programs and we are not supposed to believe that adhering could improve the athlets' performance.
B) When members of a third group of cyclists were provided with data on their own performance but not on that of other group members, they performed no better than those who received no data. BINGO. This answer choice directly supports the principle that we have just derived from the argument's conclusion. This answer shows us that when athlets are not able to compare their data with others they do not improve their performance. Hence it strengthen the initial principle according to which comparing data leads to improvements in performance. It does that by eliminating any alternate cause.
C) Cyclists in the study who scored higher on psychological tests of competitiveness performed better on the fitness tests than those who earned low scores. OUT OF SCOPE. We are not concerned about psychological tests and the argument never talks about those.
D) Stronger amateur cyclists are more likely than weaker cyclists to choose to participate in competitions. OUT OF SCOPE. The argument does not point out any meaningful info about actually participating into competitions. In fact, it states that the positive results in performance come "even when the outcome of the competition is inconsequential".
E) All cyclists in the group that was given data improved their performance significantly during the training program, while several cyclists in the group that was given no data failed to improve at all. CLOSE. This is our contender. The trick with choice E is paying attention to the exact wording.
at all represents extreme vocabulary. Are we actually concerned about how less does the second group improve compared to the first? No.
Moreover, note the answer choice E is not telling us anything new. This answer choice IS NOT telling us that ALL the cyclists in the first group improved their performance (which could slightly strengthen the argument by contrasting the fact that among the ones who compared their data there could have been someone who nonetheless did not improve his or her performance). This answer choice is just telling us that all cyclists in the group "that was given data improved their performance" improved their performance. The argument already says that by stating:
Quote:
After all, answer choice E might be tempting, but if you are willing to spend those 20 more seconds on a tough question like this one, you will be able to detect the flaw on the contender and to be sure of selecting the right answer choice.
Please, consider kudos if you liked my explanation.
Cheers!
