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.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
BinodBhai
By picking D, you are making 2 mistakes:
1. You are assuming that cameras will deter robbers. Why do we believe that? They will help identify them (but that would have to actually happen AFTER the crime is committed).
2. Not evaluating the prompt properly.
For D to be correct, it would need to be something along these lines:
- Security cameras alone have been proven to deter armed robberies just as effectively as live patrols OR
- Criminals cannot tell whether a camera is recording, so officer presence adds no extra deterrent
08 Sep 2025, 21:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
BinodBhai
Redundancy is not a failure. Just because I have 2 systems does not make 1 fail.
29 Sep 2025, 09:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone,
I must admit that I don't fully agree with the phrasing of the question/answer.
We are asked to find a circumstance which, if true, will lead to there NOT being a reduction in robberies (notice the importance of the absolute term NOT). The correct answer mentions that "Police reports from the previous year show that most of the robberies occurred in the south parking lot.", however in this case, we are not dealing with an absolute anymore: even if one robbery is prevented in the North because of the increased surveillance, this has indeed reduced robberies, therefore not matching the requirements of the question.
I am unaware of whether or not such "ambiguously formulated" questions/ answers may come up on the actual exam, but this grey zone is really what led me to select another answer out of spite.
Perhaps a phrasing such as "Which of the following, if true, most strongly suggests that concentrating most additional officers in the north parking lot will not SIGNIFICANTLY reduce robberies?" would allow to clarify the ambiguity?
Thank you in advance for the answer!
I must admit that I don't fully agree with the phrasing of the question/answer.
We are asked to find a circumstance which, if true, will lead to there NOT being a reduction in robberies (notice the importance of the absolute term NOT). The correct answer mentions that "Police reports from the previous year show that most of the robberies occurred in the south parking lot.", however in this case, we are not dealing with an absolute anymore: even if one robbery is prevented in the North because of the increased surveillance, this has indeed reduced robberies, therefore not matching the requirements of the question.
I am unaware of whether or not such "ambiguously formulated" questions/ answers may come up on the actual exam, but this grey zone is really what led me to select another answer out of spite.
Perhaps a phrasing such as "Which of the following, if true, most strongly suggests that concentrating most additional officers in the north parking lot will not SIGNIFICANTLY reduce robberies?" would allow to clarify the ambiguity?
Thank you in advance for the answer!
