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 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
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 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 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.
E
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:
61% (01:44) correct
39%
(01:51)
wrong
based on 223
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
To improve learning outcomes in high school science classes, one district replaced traditional lectures with hands-on lab activities. After one academic year, standardized science test scores in these schools rose by an average of 12 percent. Based on this outcome, the district concluded that the lab-based format is a more effective method of teaching science and has decided to implement it across all schools in the district.
Which of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the conclusion drawn by the district?
A. Whether the teachers who implemented the lab-based format had prior experience conducting hands-on science instruction.
B. Whether students in schools that adopted the new format also showed improvement in subjects that were still taught through lectures.
C. Whether any other changes to curriculum, scheduling, or student population occurred in the schools that adopted the new teaching format.
D. Whether students who performed better under the new format reported higher levels of interest in pursuing science careers.
E. Whether schools that maintained the traditional lecture-based format showed similar improvements in test scores over the same time period.
Which of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the conclusion drawn by the district?
A. Whether the teachers who implemented the lab-based format had prior experience conducting hands-on science instruction.
B. Whether students in schools that adopted the new format also showed improvement in subjects that were still taught through lectures.
C. Whether any other changes to curriculum, scheduling, or student population occurred in the schools that adopted the new teaching format.
D. Whether students who performed better under the new format reported higher levels of interest in pursuing science careers.
E. Whether schools that maintained the traditional lecture-based format showed similar improvements in test scores over the same time period.
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
V40-24
25 Dec 2025, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
GMAT Club Official Explanation:
We’re being asked to evaluate the district’s conclusion that the lab-based format caused the improvement in science test scores, and that this method is therefore better and should be expanded to all schools.
On the surface, the score improvement sounds convincing. But this is classic correlation vs causation. The real question is whether that improvement was because of the lab format or due to something else entirely. So we’re looking for the option that would help us figure that out and not just describe what happened, but test whether the core logic actually holds.
A. Whether the teachers who implemented the lab-based format had prior experience conducting hands-on science instruction.
This sounds mildly relevant, but it doesn’t test the conclusion. Even if the teachers had prior lab experience, that doesn’t prove the format itself caused the improvement. At best, this tells us about implementation quality, but we still wouldn’t know if the method was more effective or if these were just better teachers overall. It doesn’t challenge the causal link.
B. Whether students in schools that adopted the new format also showed improvement in subjects that were still taught through lectures.
Feels tempting, but this pulls us into a side topic. The argument is only about science scores. Even if students improved in other lecture-based subjects, that doesn’t prove or disprove whether the lab-based science method caused the science score bump. This is more of a distraction than a useful evaluation.
C. Whether any other changes to curriculum, scheduling, or student population occurred in the schools that adopted the new teaching format.
This is close. It touches on alternate explanations, which is good. If there were big changes beyond just the teaching format, that could challenge the causality. But the issue is that it's still too open-ended. It just invites speculation. It doesn't let us evaluate the claim directly. GMAT tends to prefer cleaner tests of the logic over vague "what if lots of other stuff happened" setups.
D. Whether students who performed better under the new format reported higher levels of interest in pursuing science careers.
This one is irrelevant. The argument is about performance, not long-term interest or career plans. Even if students found it more engaging, that doesn’t help us evaluate whether the method was more effective for learning. This is a classic “nice to know” but doesn’t test the logic.
E. Whether schools that maintained the traditional lecture-based format showed similar improvements in test scores over the same time period.
This is the correct one. It gets right to the core of the logic. If the lecture-based schools also saw similar gains, then the improvement can’t be credited to the lab format. But if only the lab-format schools improved, that supports the conclusion. This is the classic “control group” test and it’s how you’d actually evaluate whether a change in method caused the observed outcome.
General Discussion
25 Dec 2025, 09:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here E seems to be the most relevant choice imo.
Conclusion: lab-based method is more effective vs traditional method (comparison)
Premise: Average test scores rose 12%.
A - Teachers were more informed - Irrelevant.
B - Other subjects - Irrelevant
C - Change in curriculum, student population - Tough choice, can be rejected as it doesn;t compare to traditional schools, what if the same curriculum was adopted in trad. schools as well and an similar change of student pop was seen at both types of schools. (Still in my evaluation, still let's keep if we don't find a better choice)
D - Student's Interests is completely Irrelevant here. There is no proof of correlation between Interests and higher test scores.
E - A similar score improvement was obs. in trad schools as well, then it is something else, not new learning method, maybe the course textbooks are improved (maybe). Hence most relevant and attacks/favours the conclusion on either extremes.
P.S I recently started writing explanations, and it gives so much more clarity, I would recommend everyone reading to start this practice..
Conclusion: lab-based method is more effective vs traditional method (comparison)
Premise: Average test scores rose 12%.
A - Teachers were more informed - Irrelevant.
B - Other subjects - Irrelevant
C - Change in curriculum, student population - Tough choice, can be rejected as it doesn;t compare to traditional schools, what if the same curriculum was adopted in trad. schools as well and an similar change of student pop was seen at both types of schools. (Still in my evaluation, still let's keep if we don't find a better choice)
D - Student's Interests is completely Irrelevant here. There is no proof of correlation between Interests and higher test scores.
E - A similar score improvement was obs. in trad schools as well, then it is something else, not new learning method, maybe the course textbooks are improved (maybe). Hence most relevant and attacks/favours the conclusion on either extremes.
P.S I recently started writing explanations, and it gives so much more clarity, I would recommend everyone reading to start this practice..
