It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 00:59

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 15865

Kudos [?]: 29073 [1], given: 5264

Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 10:00
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED

Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 Critical Reasoning

Sept 21, Friday is the last day for the Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo. Today, we will be giving away 2 Courses in the Verbal Challenge and 2 winners will be announced

One quant and one verbal question will be posted each day starting on Monday Sept 17th at 10 AM PST/1 PM EST and the first person to correctly answer the question and show how they arrived at the answer will win a free Veritas Prep GMAT course (\$1,650 value). Winners will be selected and notified by a GMAT Club moderator. For more questions and details please check here: veritas-prep-10-year-anniversary-giveaway-138806.html

To participate, please make sure you provide the correct answer (A,B,C,D,E) and explanation that clearly shows how you arrived at it.
Winners will be announced the following day at 10 AM Pacific/1 PM Eastern Time.

Good Luck! May the best and fastest win!

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
_________________

Founder of GMAT Club

Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... or use our Daily Study Plan

Co-author of the GMAT Club tests

Kudos [?]: 29073 [1], given: 5264

 Veritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes Optimus Prep Discount Codes
Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 130

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 38

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 10:24
Quote:
College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions - irrelevent
(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking - explains only partially about 4.46 avg not abt 3.11
(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions -Correct
(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles - there is no mention of effects of playing style on rating avg
(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates - this explains why a player becomes better than the other, it however does not mention its effects on the avg rating

Recruiting services rank players between 1 to 5.
End of the career an average rating of each player does not match with the final rating of that player.
if player 1 was rated 5 times as 1, 5,5,5,5 his final rating 5 does not match with 4.2 (the avg of all 5ratings )

this is possible only when the player keeps getting different ranking throughout the career. Hence C.
_________________

Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 38

Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 10:33
Ans is (B).

Explanation:
A 5-star player can be rated at a lower star rating later on but never above a 5-star rating.
A 4-star rated player can be assigned 3 of lower star ratings (viz. 1-star, 2-star & 3-star) but only one star rating above what it was originally judged (viz. only 5-star)

Corrigendum for previous post: Explaination = Explanation

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2012
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 34

Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.37
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 10:52
(A) This talks about different positions, not difference between 2 different times.
(B) Because initial 4 star can be 3 or 5 star later so the average may not change. But with the 5 stars, it can only be reduced because the highest point achievable is 5.
(C) Difference among positions, not difference in their progress.
(D) Playing styles has nothing to do with a player's progress.
(E) Not relevant.

Last edited by monsama on 21 Sep 2012, 10:56, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 34

Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 10:54
B

conclusion is only about high-end player so the solution should tackle with that.

A 5-star player can be rated at a lower star rating later on but never above a 5-star rating.

if even once the high-end player falters in getting a lower rating his avg rating can never match up with his high end rating if he ends his career as a high rated player.

This explains the issue!

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Consulting)
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 11:54

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Consulting)
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 11:58

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Consulting)
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 11:59

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Consulting)
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 12:04

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates
- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2012
Posts: 108

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 70

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Other
GMAT 1: 550 Q30 V36
GMAT 2: 660 Q41 V40
GMAT 3: 670 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.27
WE: Corporate Finance (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 12:32
bb wrote:
College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates

A. This is out of scope because position is not mentioned in the passage and isn't relevant in this situation.
C. This doesn't have any bearing on the validity of the results prior to and after each career.
D. This is irrelevant as it would not pose a problem in the service's attempt at validating rankings.
E. This may be true, but does not identify any problem with the service's attempt to validate rankings.

CORRECT-
B. The cap at 5 stars hinders the initial assessment of players that are above that number which may leave a lot of players underrated and would pose a problem when the service attempts to determine their rankings.
_________________

"You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you." - Walt Disney

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 70

Current Student
Joined: 12 Jan 2012
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 10

GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 23:43
Stem:
1: Services rank players from 1 to 5
2: Player’s ranks averaged at the end and found that
5 rankers averaged to 4.46
4 rankers averaged to 3.98
3 rankers averaged to 3.11
Conclusion:
Rankings could not judge high end talent as well as it did the middle range talent.
(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions – Stem does not talk about positions

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
This option states that since a 5 star ranked player can never be ranked beyond 5, even if he plays better than he used to play when he was selected and there would be no room to compensate for his occasional weak performances. Since this option brings out the comparative flaw in the ranking this is the correct answer

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
– Stem does not talk about positions

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
– Stem does not talk about style of play

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates - strength training programs at different schools- not mentioned

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 10

Manager
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 48

Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2012, 02:24
Ans (C) - if players can be judged across various positions,then it could be possible that the number of players who all received 5 star / 4 star / 3 star rating initially will change during the post career ratings.

If so happened then the average of post career ratings will not give the correct rating figures for those players' initial ranking.
_________________

Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 48

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2012
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2012, 03:02
College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions
(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking
(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions
(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles
(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates

Ans A: As it states the limitation of rating a player at younger age. Due to this as the people grow older their rating becomes more accurate while the people who were rated earlier were not accurate. So considering this people who were rated 5 before may not be actually 5. While with other ratings difficulty in rating may have both positive and negative consequence so they combine to neutralise and average out to be more uniform
B) They do not need to outperform just need to maintain
C) Different position has nothing to do with players rating.
4) irrelevant. We are not talking about different schools
5) irrelevant comparision

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42259

Kudos [?]: 132744 [0], given: 12369

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2012, 09:03

Winners:

igloo and rajathpanta

Official Explanation:

This problem demonstrates a type of data flaw that you might not expect – which is exactly what the author of a hard question wants, for you to accept a faulty conclusion because you did not critically examine the data. What’s the flaw here? In a five-point scale, a predicted ‘4’ has multiple outcomes: a 5 (exceeding expectations and bringing the group average up), a 4 (meeting expectations, keeping the average the same), or a 3 or below (underperforming the prediction, bringing the average down). But a predicted ‘5’ can only live up to expectations – it cannot exceed them. Anything other than a 5 brings the expected average down. So while the experts’ misevaluations of a 4-star prospect might be balanced out by some 5s to counter 3s, their evaluations of a 5-star prospect all count in the same downward direction. Choice B exposes this flaw – the experts may have missed just as often with 3 and 4 star players, but because they could miss on either side of the predicted value the average is close to what they predicted.For your study, this is important – especially with the Integrated Reasoning section included, the GMAT will feature plenty of problems in which statistics are used improperly, to draw invalid conclusions. Be skeptical of statistics and train yourself to look for data flaws, both on the GMAT and in business in general.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 132744 [0], given: 12369

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2015, 15:40
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2016, 02:51
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary Promo Question #10   [#permalink] 24 Jul 2016, 02:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 35 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by