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.
A
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:
45% (02:18) correct
55%
(02:28)
wrong
based on 534
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In the vast majority of cases, when people are stopped by airport security clearance, it is because they are carrying small bits of metal, such as coins, that cannot be used as weapons, but are large enough to be picked up by highly sensitive metal detectors. Since virtually everyone carries such pieces of metal, and the weapons that are smuggled onto planes are often not made of metal, highly sensitive metal detectors have outlived their usefulness. Lowering the sensitivity of these metal detectors so that they only detect large pieces of metal would reduce the frequency with which innocent passengers are stopped without hampering security’s ability to screen for weapons.
Which of the following, if true, is most useful to support the claim that this proposal would have its desired effect if it were carried out?
(A) Airport metal detectors, when set to lower levels of sensitivity, will not react to wristwatches, belt buckles, or the small rivets commonly used on travelers’ jeans.
(B) The maintenance and electricity costs associated with metal detectors are far lower when detectors are utilized at a high level of sensitivity than when they are used at a lower level of sensitivity.
(C) A metal detector with a low level of sensitivity can provide more information about what type of weapon a person is carrying, if they are carrying a weapon, than can a metal detector with a high level of sensitivity.
(D) In some cases, passengers who are stopped because they are only carrying coins are found to be smuggling non-metal weapons.
(E) Some weapons that are not made primarily out of metal include small bits of metal used as fasteners or serial number plates.
Which of the following, if true, is most useful to support the claim that this proposal would have its desired effect if it were carried out?
(A) Airport metal detectors, when set to lower levels of sensitivity, will not react to wristwatches, belt buckles, or the small rivets commonly used on travelers’ jeans.
(B) The maintenance and electricity costs associated with metal detectors are far lower when detectors are utilized at a high level of sensitivity than when they are used at a lower level of sensitivity.
(C) A metal detector with a low level of sensitivity can provide more information about what type of weapon a person is carrying, if they are carrying a weapon, than can a metal detector with a high level of sensitivity.
(D) In some cases, passengers who are stopped because they are only carrying coins are found to be smuggling non-metal weapons.
(E) Some weapons that are not made primarily out of metal include small bits of metal used as fasteners or serial number plates.
08 Jun 2010, 07:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks for the discussion everyone.
Your confusion is understandable since the question was actually copied incorrectly!
In our materials, answer choice A reads "(A) Airport metal detectors, when set to LOWER levels of sensitivity..."
And then the answer is clearly A (though C does remain a strong second-best option). Here's the whole explanation.
--
We are given a situation in which airport metal detectors are said to be too sensitive, forcing innocent passengers carrying coins to be stopped. The argument states that innocent passengers would be stopped less often (because the small bits of harmless metal they are carrying would not set off detectors) with no loss of security (because weapons are not always metal, and if they are, use a larger amount of metal than a coin) if the detectors were programmed to be less sensitive. The correct answer will be additional evidence that supports the first claim without undermining the second.
Choice A: This choice is correct. This choice bolsters the claim that passengers, presumably innocent, with small bits of metal that are not weapons (watches, belts or jean rivets) will not be stopped unnecessarily. Although this choice adds nothing to the claim that security will retain its ability to screen for weapons, it does not undermine it either.
Choice B: The cost of the proposed plan is not at issue. The desired effect of the plan is to retain security and reduce innocent passenger stops, and this choice does not effect either of those issues.
Choice C: This is a very tempting answer choice, because it is a positive aspect of low-sensitivity metal detectors, but this choice does not, in fact, directly address the claim that fewer innocent people will be stopped by the low-sensitivity detectors. This choice only applies to people already carrying weapons, who are not, by definition, innocent.
Choice D: This choice undermines the claim. If passengers who are stopped for having small amounts of metal are carrying weapons, then reducing security's ability to stop them would hamper the ability to screen for weapons.
Choice E: This choice also undermines the proposal. If only small pieces of metal are used in weapons, then a metal detector must be able to detect small pieces of metal to detect weapons.
Your confusion is understandable since the question was actually copied incorrectly!
In our materials, answer choice A reads "(A) Airport metal detectors, when set to LOWER levels of sensitivity..."
And then the answer is clearly A (though C does remain a strong second-best option). Here's the whole explanation.
--
We are given a situation in which airport metal detectors are said to be too sensitive, forcing innocent passengers carrying coins to be stopped. The argument states that innocent passengers would be stopped less often (because the small bits of harmless metal they are carrying would not set off detectors) with no loss of security (because weapons are not always metal, and if they are, use a larger amount of metal than a coin) if the detectors were programmed to be less sensitive. The correct answer will be additional evidence that supports the first claim without undermining the second.
Choice A: This choice is correct. This choice bolsters the claim that passengers, presumably innocent, with small bits of metal that are not weapons (watches, belts or jean rivets) will not be stopped unnecessarily. Although this choice adds nothing to the claim that security will retain its ability to screen for weapons, it does not undermine it either.
Choice B: The cost of the proposed plan is not at issue. The desired effect of the plan is to retain security and reduce innocent passenger stops, and this choice does not effect either of those issues.
Choice C: This is a very tempting answer choice, because it is a positive aspect of low-sensitivity metal detectors, but this choice does not, in fact, directly address the claim that fewer innocent people will be stopped by the low-sensitivity detectors. This choice only applies to people already carrying weapons, who are not, by definition, innocent.
Choice D: This choice undermines the claim. If passengers who are stopped for having small amounts of metal are carrying weapons, then reducing security's ability to stop them would hamper the ability to screen for weapons.
Choice E: This choice also undermines the proposal. If only small pieces of metal are used in weapons, then a metal detector must be able to detect small pieces of metal to detect weapons.
23 Jan 2010, 11:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey All,
Just wanted to put my two cents in. I agree that the correct answer to this question ought to be C. Answer choice A confuses higher sensitivity and lower sensitivity. The question is whether or not LOWERING the sensitivity of the apparatus will have an effect, either through annoying passengers or failing to locate weapons. Answer choice A says that if the machine is set to HIGHER sensitivity, it won't pick up on rivets and such. Not only does this not make any sense (why would higher sensitivity NOT pick up those things?). It seems to me this question was perhaps copied incorrectly (here on the message board), and "higher" should be "lower". Answer choice C directly relates to the conclusion. OBVIOUSLY lowering the sensitivity will mean the machine picks up on fewer small objects, so we don't need our strengthen answer to address that. We just want to make sure it ALSO doesn't hamper the security abilities of the machine. Answer choice C tells us that this is the case.
Hope that helps!
Tommy Wallach
Just wanted to put my two cents in. I agree that the correct answer to this question ought to be C. Answer choice A confuses higher sensitivity and lower sensitivity. The question is whether or not LOWERING the sensitivity of the apparatus will have an effect, either through annoying passengers or failing to locate weapons. Answer choice A says that if the machine is set to HIGHER sensitivity, it won't pick up on rivets and such. Not only does this not make any sense (why would higher sensitivity NOT pick up those things?). It seems to me this question was perhaps copied incorrectly (here on the message board), and "higher" should be "lower". Answer choice C directly relates to the conclusion. OBVIOUSLY lowering the sensitivity will mean the machine picks up on fewer small objects, so we don't need our strengthen answer to address that. We just want to make sure it ALSO doesn't hamper the security abilities of the machine. Answer choice C tells us that this is the case.
Hope that helps!
Tommy Wallach
