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.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
04 Dec 2018, 04:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
AdityaHongunti
Quote:
Argument:
As per a recent survey, an average middle-aged person drives his or her car for two thousand miles in a year and 99% of these people own a gasoline-run car.
In addition, the survey suggested that if offered an economical option to switch to electric cars, most of these people would change their gasoline-run cars.
Plan: Implement a plan that would allow all the current owners of gasoline-run cars to switch to electric cars at a minimal cost.
Note that the survey is talking about average middle aged people only. We don't know what part of the population they represent. But the plan is being made for "all current owners".
Objective: Significantly reducing air pollution in Papula in the next 5 years
Find the option that casts doubt on the plan:
A. Though some of the citizens are concerned about the negative environmental impact of air pollution, they will not spend any extra money to protect the environment.
Some citizens could mean very few citizens. Also, are these "some citizens" gasoline car owners - we don't know. So this doesn't directly impact our plan.
B. The budget deficit of the government of Papula is already at alarming levels, and any further increase in the deficit could lead to the bankruptcy of the country.
Irrelevant to our argument.
C. Since Papula is an aging country, with more than half its population near retirement age, the chief consideration for a large number of its citizens is the convenience to drive rather than the costs to do so.
Here is the twist. More than half the population of Papula is near retirement. So the middle age people we talked about forms a smaller part of the population. This casts a doubt on our plan - we don't know what the older people feel about switching. For this older generation, convenience is more important than cost. The parameter on which the older generation judges is different than the one on which the middle aged people judge. The plan is being made keeping the parameter of middle aged people in mind. This again casts doubt on the success of the plan.
D. In the last two decades, Papula has emerged as a major economic hub, leading to an increase in the living standard of its citizens and in the number of cars in the region.
In the last two decades, number of cars has increased. But we are planning to replace all gasoline run cars so it doesn't matter what the actual number of cars is.
E. Since people who don’t own gasoline cars would not be benefitted from the proposed plan, they may strongly oppose the use of taxpayer money on such a plan.
Irrelevant to our argument.
Answer (C)
04 Dec 2018, 09:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
sharmasneha
Hi VeritasKarishma
Can you please identify the conclusion of the argument.
Is the conclusion "The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change. "
Or
is the conclusion"ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place. "
Also how can I identify which one is the main conclusion.
I often use the because/therefore test.
The current pattern of human consumption of resources, in which we rely on nonrenewable resources, for example metal ore, must eventually change because we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place.
This sentence doesnot make sense to me. Can you please suggest how can I identify the conclusion in these types of arguments? (the ones where we have "must")
Doubt 2:
"ultimately we must either do without or turn to renewable resources to take its place."
(A) There are renewable resource replacements for all of the nonrenewable resources currently being consumed.
If the argument hadnot mentioned "without" Can Option A be a relevant assumption?
I think it won't be.
We do not need renewable resources for all non renewable resources. We just need renewable ones for metal because we need to replace metal.
(it's place=Metal)
Is something wrong with my understanding?
Regards
Nitesh
04 Dec 2018, 23:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan, Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain's serotonin level. Thus sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is presented in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
Hi VeritasKarishma.
Can you please help me with this question.
I was confused between option A and option D.
After going through some basics, I came up with a reason to eliminate Option A and a reason to not eliminate A.(BIG CONFUSION)
ELIMINATION:
If
A causes B.
The main assumption of the argument is the A ONLY causes B.
it means that If A happens, B has to happen.
Now option A:
B requires A to happen.
This will imply that that the occurrence of of B depends on A happening i.e A is a necessary condition for B to happen.
This implies that B might still not occur.(if other conditions are not met)
The author by stating a causation never assumes this concept.
Am I right in thinking along this line of reasoning?
ON the other hand if my statement would have been:
Only A causes B.
Then this statement would have been an appropriate assumption.
NOT ELIMINATE:
Q.Also can we eliminate option A using negation technique?
For eg: A is not needed for B to happen.
This means that B can happen without the occurrence of A.
B happens without A happening.
Confusion: wouldn't this then break the argument?
I would love to hear your thoughts on why Is option A incorrect.
Looking forward to your reply
Regards
Nitesh
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is presented in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
Hi VeritasKarishma.
Can you please help me with this question.
I was confused between option A and option D.
After going through some basics, I came up with a reason to eliminate Option A and a reason to not eliminate A.(BIG CONFUSION)
ELIMINATION:
If
A causes B.
The main assumption of the argument is the A ONLY causes B.
it means that If A happens, B has to happen.
Now option A:
B requires A to happen.
This will imply that that the occurrence of of B depends on A happening i.e A is a necessary condition for B to happen.
This implies that B might still not occur.(if other conditions are not met)
The author by stating a causation never assumes this concept.
Am I right in thinking along this line of reasoning?
ON the other hand if my statement would have been:
Only A causes B.
Then this statement would have been an appropriate assumption.
NOT ELIMINATE:
Q.Also can we eliminate option A using negation technique?
For eg: A is not needed for B to happen.
This means that B can happen without the occurrence of A.
B happens without A happening.
Confusion: wouldn't this then break the argument?
I would love to hear your thoughts on why Is option A incorrect.
Looking forward to your reply
Regards
Nitesh
