A student response survey found that students who paid for 10 or more

Question

A student response survey found that students who paid for 10 or more in-person tutoring sessions on an hour-by-hour basis missed or rescheduled a session on average once every five sessions. By contrast, those students who purchased tutoring sessions in ten-hour packages missed or rescheduled a session on average only once every ten sessions. This indicates that students are at least partly motivated by the amount of money they have invested for in-person tutoring. Which of the following, if true, calls into question the explanation above?

(A) The price per hour was slightly more expensive for those who bought individual hours.

(B) Many students who missed or rescheduled sessions did so although they made a strong verbal commitment beforehand to be present.

(C) All students must pay a 10% fee for rescheduling any tutoring session, but if a student cancels a session entirely, the entire cost is forfeited.

(D) Upon purchase of any tutoring hours, students are required to immediately schedule all the purchased hours.

(E) Students who try to reschedule tutoring sessions without enough notice may not be able to make up the session in a timely fashion, so that it counts as a missed session.

NoboruSean · Answer

The correct answer is A.

(A) The price per hour was slightly more expensive for those who bought individual hours.

Impact:

This means that students who purchase sessions individually actually pay more per hour than those who buy 10-hour packages.

Implication: If paying more per hour were the main driver of motivation, then the individual-hour buyers should be even more motivated to attend and miss fewer sessions. However, they miss sessions more frequently (1 in 5) compared to package buyers (1 in 10).

Thus: This factor calls into question the explanation that financial investment is the key motivator. It suggests that despite a higher per-hour cost (i.e., greater money at stake per session), individual buyers still miss more sessions, which undermines the idea that money invested is responsible for better attendance.

(B) Many students who missed or rescheduled sessions did so although they made a strong verbal commitment beforehand to be present.

Impact:

This provides an alternative behavioral factor (verbal commitment) but does not directly challenge the idea that money invested affects attendance.

(C) All students must pay a 10% fee for rescheduling any tutoring session, but if a student cancels a session entirely, the entire cost is forfeited.

Impact:

While this fee structure might influence behavior, it applies equally to both individual-hour buyers and package buyers. It does not explain the difference between the two groups.

(D) Upon purchase of any tutoring hours, students are required to immediately schedule all the purchased hours.

Impact:

This requirement applies to both groups and therefore cannot account for the difference in missed sessions based on the type of purchase.

(E) Students who try to reschedule tutoring sessions without enough notice may not be able to make up the session in a timely fashion, so that it counts as a missed session.

Impact:

This speaks to how missed sessions are recorded, but it would affect both groups similarly, so it doesn’t explain the difference.

Su1206 · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB

I agree that OA (Choice A) is correct, but i am not fully convinced that Option C is incorrect.

Going as per option C, students purchasing the course on by-hour basis will still pay the rescheduling fees twice, thus weakening the argument.

Can you throw some light on this.

KarishmaB · Answer

Option (C) is irrelevant. It gives you what the fees for rescheduling is and it is the same whether you have the package or you buy hour on hour. Anybody who wants to reschedule, will pay that fee and it will be a small percentage compared to the hourly charges (10%).

The difference lies in buying something for $200 and something else for $2000. When people buy a package for $2000, they miss or reschedule fewer classes i.e. they give priority to these classes over other things. But when they buy hour on hour, they miss or reschedule more classes i.e. the classes are lower in their priority list. 
The impact of rescheduling fee is the same in both cases. They shouldn't reschedule in case of hour on hour purchase too then.

RajivJoarder · Answer

I need some help in Eliminating Option D.
Is it wrong to infer that students who schedule 10 sessions upfront(while paying) do so because they have different scheduling requirement, compared to those who schedule hour by hour basis? Maybe because they have more predictable routines, or are more punctual by nature, which cause lesser Reschedules/Misses, compared to the ones scheduling hour by hour basis?

On the other hand, if we carefully test option A, even through the per hour prices are slightly higher for hour by hour mode, the price for 10 hours paid at once will still strengthen the stem that the money invested is proportional to the motivation to not Reschedule/Miss.

If we say per hour of session costs $105 while cost of 10 hour bundle is $1000, paying $1000 upfront still motivates the student more than paying $105.

Please explain where I am going wrong.

guddo · Answer

I think the issue is that the explanation is not “paying more  upfront  causes better attendance.” It says the difference is due to the  amount of money invested .

(A) attacks that directly. If hour-by-hour students pay more per hour, then they may actually have more money at stake for each session, yet they miss or reschedule more often. That weakens the money-investment explanation.

(D) does not say package buyers have more predictable routines or are naturally more punctual. That is your added story. All (D) says is that students must schedule purchased hours immediately. It does not explain why one group would miss less often.

So (D) is not enough by itself. (A) gives a direct reason to question the stated explanation.

egmat · Answer

Hi RajivJoarder,

You've actually put your finger on the exact word that resolves  both  of your questions. Let's start with A, because there's one phrase in the stem that changes everything.

Re-read the setup:  "students who paid for  10 or more  in-person tutoring sessions on an hour-by-hour basis." So the hour-by-hour group didn't buy just one session - they bought  10+  sessions too, just paid for them one at a time.

That's where your  $105 -vs- $1000  comparison breaks down. You're comparing  one  individual hour against a  ten-hour  package. But the comparison that matters is  per session , and that's exactly what A gives you:

- Package buyers: each session costs them the package rate, say  $100 
- Hour-by-hour buyers: each session costs them slightly  more , say  $105

So for any single session either student is about to skip, the hour-by-hour student has  more  money riding on it. Yet that's the group missing sessions twice as often ( 1  in  5  vs  1  in  10 ). If money at stake drove attendance, that's backwards. That's exactly why A  calls the explanation into question  rather than strengthening it.

Why D doesn't weaken

Here's the key: D says nothing about "predictable routines" or students being "more punctual by nature." That's an idea  you added  - it isn't in the choice. On the GMAT we judge a choice only by what it actually states.

What D actually states is that  all  students must schedule their purchased hours upfront. That rule applies to both groups equally, so it gives us no reason why one group misses twice as often as the other. It leaves the money explanation exactly where it was - untouched. A choice that doesn't act on the argument's link can't weaken it.

So: A hits the money claim head-on; D is neutral. The trap was reading " 10 or more " too quickly on one, and importing an unstated personality trait on the other.

Answer: A

A student response survey found that students who paid for 10 or more

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A student response survey found that students who paid for 10 or more

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards