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.
21 Feb 2026, 21:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
21 Feb 2026, 21:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
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.
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.
Answer: E
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.
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.
Answer: E
