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.
Do expenditures on road construction projects represent good investments for communities? The taxpaying public will never know because community planners rarely analyze road projects as investments. The benefits that local residents will receive from a new or improved road, such as increased efficiency, fewer accidents, and reduced vehicle operating costs, as well as the potential regional impacts on jobs, population, and income, should be measured. These benefits should then be compared with the total construction costs of the project, such as planning and design, land purchases, construction, and costs for moving utility lines. Only then will any investment in building or improving roads be made with reasonable confidence.
Both the economist and ecologist offer guidance for planners who are considering whether to undertake road construction projects.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
71% (02:45) correct
29%
(02:58)
wrong
based on 1302
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
1. Based on the information given, which one of the following can be most logically inferred?
| The ecologist faults community planners generally for not considering the effect of converting land to industrial or residential use. | |
| The economist would allow road construction to proceed even if it would threaten sensitive ecosystems. | |
| Both the economist and ecologist offer guidance for planners who are considering whether to undertake road construction projects. | |
| Both the economist and the ecologist consider the regional economic impacts of road construction projects. | |
| Neither the economist nor the ecologist provides clear criteria for determining whether a road project should be undertaken. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Both the economist and ecologist offer guidance for planners who are considering whether to undertake road construction projects.
The economist is more intent on endorsing road construction projects than the ecologist is.: No
The economist and the ecologist are both concerned with the criteria on which community planners base decisions.: Yes
The ecologist is concerned with how road projects can affect the quality of life within communities, whereas the economist is not.: No
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
63% (00:57) correct
37%
(01:08)
wrong
based on 1373
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
2. For each of the following statements, select Yes if the statement is supported by the information provided. Otherwise select No.
| Yes | No | |
| The economist is more intent on endorsing road construction projects than the ecologist is. | ||
| The economist and the ecologist are both concerned with the criteria on which community planners base decisions. | ||
| The ecologist is concerned with how road projects can affect the quality of life within communities, whereas the economist is not. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
The economist is more intent on endorsing road construction projects than the ecologist is.: No
The economist and the ecologist are both concerned with the criteria on which community planners base decisions.: Yes
The ecologist is concerned with how road projects can affect the quality of life within communities, whereas the economist is not.: No
The road’s planned route could be altered to avoid the sensitive ecosystem at no additional cost.: Acceptable
The road would provide a significant economic benefit to neighboring communities.: Not Acceptable
Mitigating the threat to the sensitive ecosystem would cost an additional $1 million.: Not Acceptable
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
61% (01:07) correct
39%
(01:16)
wrong
based on 1336
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
3. In the columns, select Acceptable for each detail that would make the new road acceptable under the standards provided by both the economist and the ecologist, based on the information provided. Otherwise, select Not acceptable.
| Acceptable | Not Acceptable | |
| The road’s planned route could be altered to avoid the sensitive ecosystem at no additional cost. | ||
| The road would provide a significant economic benefit to neighboring communities. | ||
| Mitigating the threat to the sensitive ecosystem would cost an additional $1 million. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
The road’s planned route could be altered to avoid the sensitive ecosystem at no additional cost.: Acceptable
The road would provide a significant economic benefit to neighboring communities.: Not Acceptable
Mitigating the threat to the sensitive ecosystem would cost an additional $1 million.: Not Acceptable
11 Jul 2020, 10:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
1)C,since both economist and ecologist are talking about the impacts of road construction project and whether to carry it.
2)a)No,since no one is endorsing the project rather one is looking the impact and benefits of the project for people and the other is looking the impact on environment.
b)Yes,both are concerned with how the planners base their decision,I mean is it via public good or via ecological/environmental considerations
c)No,there is no such bias mentioned in the above para, it's just that both are talking of two different cases.
3) Statement 2 & 3 are directly not acceptable since 2 only talks about the economic benefits,which only satisfies the economist criteria and here there might be negative environmental impacts,while in statement 3 it is only talking about the ecosystem and not about the economy,thus looking on only one side of the coin
While statement 1 talks about ecology (avoiding any problems to environment by planning the road) and economy(since cost saving is there,which ultimately saves taxpayers money and road is also constructed ,thus economic benefits are also there) ,so both economist and ecologist are happy
Posted from my mobile device
2)a)No,since no one is endorsing the project rather one is looking the impact and benefits of the project for people and the other is looking the impact on environment.
b)Yes,both are concerned with how the planners base their decision,I mean is it via public good or via ecological/environmental considerations
c)No,there is no such bias mentioned in the above para, it's just that both are talking of two different cases.
3) Statement 2 & 3 are directly not acceptable since 2 only talks about the economic benefits,which only satisfies the economist criteria and here there might be negative environmental impacts,while in statement 3 it is only talking about the ecosystem and not about the economy,thus looking on only one side of the coin
While statement 1 talks about ecology (avoiding any problems to environment by planning the road) and economy(since cost saving is there,which ultimately saves taxpayers money and road is also constructed ,thus economic benefits are also there) ,so both economist and ecologist are happy
Posted from my mobile device
General Discussion
rohan.garg971
20 Dec 2023, 19:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
In Q3, I think the 1st statement is still Not acceptable - we are not given any information whether the proposed route alteration can change the benefits or not.
