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.
09 Feb 2026, 11:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
09 Feb 2026, 11:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. [b]Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
[/b]
A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
This says the second boldface “accepts the doubt and abandons the plan.” But that’s not what happened as the funding was approved anyway. So this is wrong because the second boldface does not say “we rejected the forecast”; it says “we funded them anyway.”
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
This says the second boldface is “unrelated” to the first. But it’s actually very related and it’s the reason they funded the startup despite the doubt. So this is also wrong because the second boldface isn’t random; it directly addresses the first.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
This says the second boldface is about “a broader market dynamic.” But it’s not, it’s about the founder’s track record and a distribution deal, not market conditions.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
This sounds right. First boldface = objection based on history (other companies with more resources had grown slower). Second boldface = reason they still funded anyway (founder track record plus partnership), a factor that outweighed the objection.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
This says the second boldface is a “conclusion” that contradicts the first. But the second boldface isn’t a conclusion; it’s a reason they went ahead. Also, it’s not about a “more compelling assumption”; it’s about concrete evidence (founder track record, partnership).
Answer: D
Many startups present aggressive user growth projections to attract funding, but such forecasts often lead to unsustainable burn rates and eventual failure. One firm recently projected a tenfold increase in users within twelve months, despite having a small engineering team and minimal marketing spend. [b]Skepticism about these projections arose, given that similar firms with greater resources had grown more slowly. Nonetheless, funding was approved based on the founder’s proven execution history and a pre-launch distribution partnership with a major platform.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
[/b]
A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
A. The first is a challenge to the plausibility of a strategic forecast; the second accepts that challenge and concludes the forecast should be abandoned.
This says the second boldface “accepts the doubt and abandons the plan.” But that’s not what happened as the funding was approved anyway. So this is wrong because the second boldface does not say “we rejected the forecast”; it says “we funded them anyway.”
B. The first identifies a structural weakness in a proposed plan; the second presents an unrelated consideration that supports the plan nonetheless.
This says the second boldface is “unrelated” to the first. But it’s actually very related and it’s the reason they funded the startup despite the doubt. So this is also wrong because the second boldface isn’t random; it directly addresses the first.
C. The first offers evidence against the feasibility of a projection; the second qualifies that evidence by introducing a broader market dynamic.
This says the second boldface is about “a broader market dynamic.” But it’s not, it’s about the founder’s track record and a distribution deal, not market conditions.
D. The first introduces an objection based on historical precedent; the second provides a contrasting factor that outweighed the objection in determining a course of action.
This sounds right. First boldface = objection based on history (other companies with more resources had grown slower). Second boldface = reason they still funded anyway (founder track record plus partnership), a factor that outweighed the objection.
E. The first raises a reason to reject a proposed action; the second is a conclusion that contradicts that rejection by relying on a more compelling assumption.
This says the second boldface is a “conclusion” that contradicts the first. But the second boldface isn’t a conclusion; it’s a reason they went ahead. Also, it’s not about a “more compelling assumption”; it’s about concrete evidence (founder track record, partnership).
Answer: D
