GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Feb 2019, 00:13

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT RC Webinar

     February 23, 2019

     February 23, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Learn reading strategies that can help even non-voracious reader to master GMAT RC. Saturday, February 23rd at 7 AM PT
  • FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

     February 24, 2019

     February 24, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.

Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2019, 05:27
1
Mudit27021988 wrote:
Hello VeritasKarishma

I am deeply troubled with Assumption type questions. I am not able to sail through the simplest of the assumption questions however I do understand all the theories regarding assumption i.e. negation, pre-thinking, supporter/defender assumptions. Somehow I am still answering the questions because of gut feeling and not because of the correct rational.
Q1)
concerned Citizen: The American electoral system clearly possesses deep flaws and must be discarded in favor of a more fair and just system. In several recent elections, candidates who were leading in pre-election polls failed to win election to office.

The suggestion that the American electoral system must be discarded most strongly depends on which of the following assumptions?


A. The candidate leading in pre-election polls won a majority of the popular vote in the actual election yet still failed to be elected.

B. The voting population did not significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

C. The candidate winning the election consistently spent more money than the candidate who was leading in pre-election polls but failed to actually win.

D. The candidate who actually won office typically relied on a strongly negative campaign strategy and attacked his or her opponent's personal credibility in the final days before the election.

E. The elections in question were for major national or state offices and received considerable media coverage.

Here I rejected Option B simply because after negating the argument:
The voting population did significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

I felt that here just alteration of feeling doesnt imply that candidates actually voted differently. So, I marked A. Later I realized that "poppular vote" part is insignificant and doesnt prove a point.

Q2)

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.

Here I am not able to knock of D). Negating D:
"Not All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases" This means that atleast 1 person is not genetically susceptible to some diseases, or to say atleast 1 person is susceptible to non-genetic disease.

Do you see a pattern here? Can you pleaaaaaseeeeee help me out!!!!!

Apologies for such a long post!!
Thanks


Here is an explanation of your two questions:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/concerned-ci ... l#p2221624
https://gmatclub.com/forum/within-20-ye ... l#p2221634
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 96
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2019, 22:01
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Mudit27021988 wrote:
Hello VeritasKarishma

I am deeply troubled with Assumption type questions. I am not able to sail through the simplest of the assumption questions however I do understand all the theories regarding assumption i.e. negation, pre-thinking, supporter/defender assumptions. Somehow I am still answering the questions because of gut feeling and not because of the correct rational.
Q1)
concerned Citizen: The American electoral system clearly possesses deep flaws and must be discarded in favor of a more fair and just system. In several recent elections, candidates who were leading in pre-election polls failed to win election to office.

The suggestion that the American electoral system must be discarded most strongly depends on which of the following assumptions?


A. The candidate leading in pre-election polls won a majority of the popular vote in the actual election yet still failed to be elected.

B. The voting population did not significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

C. The candidate winning the election consistently spent more money than the candidate who was leading in pre-election polls but failed to actually win.

D. The candidate who actually won office typically relied on a strongly negative campaign strategy and attacked his or her opponent's personal credibility in the final days before the election.

E. The elections in question were for major national or state offices and received considerable media coverage.

Here I rejected Option B simply because after negating the argument:
The voting population did significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

I felt that here just alteration of feeling doesnt imply that candidates actually voted differently. So, I marked A. Later I realized that "poppular vote" part is insignificant and doesnt prove a point.

Q2)

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.

Here I am not able to knock of D). Negating D:
"Not All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases" This means that atleast 1 person is not genetically susceptible to some diseases, or to say atleast 1 person is susceptible to non-genetic disease.

Do you see a pattern here? Can you pleaaaaaseeeeee help me out!!!!!

Apologies for such a long post!!
Thanks


I think you are approaching it wrong. Assumption questions are solved keeping in mind what an assumption is.
It is a MISSING NECESSARY PREMISE.
Read about it here first:
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/0 ... sumptions/
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/0 ... -question/
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/0 ... ons-again/

Don't jump to negation immediately. It is just one of the techniques that helps you when you are stuck. I will take the questions you talked about separately.


Thanks @veritaskariahma. I went through the links ans the responses to my problems in detail. I will tweak my approach and will see if I can sail through this.

Thanks again. :) :)

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 156
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
CAT Tests
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Feb 2019, 04:40
Hi VeritasKarishma


https://gmatclub.com/forum/ragct-2015-d ... 02099.html

Conclusion: Bleach, as long as it is diluted properly, is an effective means of eliminating any health risks.
Premise: Diluted Bleach can eliminate bacteria.

IN this question, we are not told about the ability of Diluted Bleach to eliminate Pathogens.
So In option A, wouldn't the impact be varied?
If we say Yes it can eliminate the pathogen: this will strengthen the argument.
If we say NO it cannot eliminate the pathogen: this will weaken the argument.
Hence IMO it should have been explicitly stated that Bleach kills only Bacteria for the weakner to work.
Where am I going wrong in my analysis?



Doubt 2:

The following is one of your explanations of a question. I have a follow up doibt.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-intervie ... l#p2223007
Please do have a look


Regards
Nitesh
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2019, 04:58
nitesh50 wrote:
Hi VeritasKarishma


https://gmatclub.com/forum/ragct-2015-d ... 02099.html

Conclusion: Bleach, as long as it is diluted properly, is an effective means of eliminating any health risks.
Premise: Diluted Bleach can eliminate bacteria.

IN this question, we are not told about the ability of Diluted Bleach to eliminate Pathogens.
So In option A, wouldn't the impact be varied?
If we say Yes it can eliminate the pathogen: this will strengthen the argument.
If we say NO it cannot eliminate the pathogen: this will weaken the argument.
Hence IMO it should have been explicitly stated that Bleach kills only Bacteria for the weakner to work.
Where am I going wrong in my analysis?



Doubt 2:

The following is one of your explanations of a question. I have a follow up doibt.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-intervie ... l#p2223007
Please do have a look


Regards
Nitesh


Nitesh, the premises talk about bacteria only. But the conclusion talks about eliminating ALL health risks. Can only bacteria cause health risks?

Option (A) highlights this problem - machines have many other kinds of pathogens too. So ALL health risks may not be taken care of.

Yes, you are right. Effectiveness of diluted/undiluted bleach can certainly be questioned too but no option talks about it. There are various ways of weakening the argument.

There are various questions that can be raised to weaken the conclusion.
I. At what level of dilution is the bleach effective and safe?
II. Is bacteria the only health risk in the washing machines?
III. Does the beach itself leave deposits in the machine and create health risks?

Our option (A) focusses on II.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 156
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
CAT Tests
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2019, 02:57
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2019, 03:59
Hey nitesh50,

Here you go: https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... l#p2224477


nitesh50 wrote:
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2019, 21:06
nitesh50 wrote:
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh


What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 156
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
CAT Tests
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2019, 21:25
VeritasKarishma wrote:
nitesh50 wrote:
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh


What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.




Hi VeritasKarishma

Thank you for your reply!

I do get why option B is correct. The parallel example really helped me. IMO, what option B is decreasing out belief in the force of the evidence.

But I am still confused about option A.
The Consultant says: weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.
From my relatively short experience with Cr questions, sometimes we have to read the options in light of the argument.

Option A states that 95% of the companies that attended the seminar.......
Will it be wrong to say that those companies are actually software companies?
There is no hint in the argument that implies that they were some different sort of seminars. Hence, I feel that the companies that is being referred to option A are actually Software companies. If they are, then the argument is still weakened.

Why this line of reasoning incorrect?

Regards
Nitesh
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Feb 2019, 04:48
1
nitesh50 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
nitesh50 wrote:
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh


What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.




Hi VeritasKarishma

Thank you for your reply!

I do get why option B is correct. The parallel example really helped me. IMO, what option B is decreasing out belief in the force of the evidence.

But I am still confused about option A.
The Consultant says: weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.
From my relatively short experience with Cr questions, sometimes we have to read the options in light of the argument.

Option A states that 95% of the companies that attended the seminar.......
Will it be wrong to say that those companies are actually software companies?
There is no hint in the argument that implies that they were some different sort of seminars. Hence, I feel that the companies that is being referred to option A are actually Software companies. If they are, then the argument is still weakened.

Why this line of reasoning incorrect?

Regards
Nitesh


Nitesh, the argument talks about software companies.

Consultant: Your total revenue would increase considerably if you enrolled your employees in my weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.
- He says, "Enrol your employees in my seminar that is designed for your business (the kind of seminar is the one designed for you)."
It doesn't imply that my seminar is for your kind of companies only.

Software Company Executive: Your seminars are poorly designed and a waste of money. Since 2005, the companies in my industry that have enrolled employees in your seminar have revenues that are considerably lower than those who have not enrolled employees in your seminar.
- "Your seminars" further clarifies that there are multiple types of seminars. The companies in my industry that have ... (so talking about companies in software industry only)

Option (A) talks of a different set.

(A) 95% of the companies that enrol in the consultant’s seminar report that their revenues have increased.
95% of the companies that enrol in the consultant's seminar report ...
What can we say about the software companies that enrolled in his seminar? Nothing. We don't know what percentage of these companies are made up by software companies.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 156
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
CAT Tests
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Feb 2019, 21:45
VeritasKarishma wrote:
nitesh50 wrote:
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh


What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.





Hi VeritasKarishma

I know it is not a good habit of comparing questions if their reasonings are different. But I came across a OG question, which uses some of the concept of the above Veritas question.


Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?


(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century


The argument is drawn by using the presence of METAL RINGS as a premise.
The correct option uses metal objects
Why can't we say that metal rings are not part of the metal objects that were traded?
Just as in the Veritas prep question, in which we don't know what % of the companies were software companies, the OG option A do looks similar.


Looking forward to your reply.

Thank you
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Posts: 16
GMAT 1: 590 Q47 V25
Reviews Badge
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2019, 11:36
Can you please guide me on 'How to distinguish between a sufficient and a necessary condition in a question'?

Following is a question : Historians frequently argue that an outlet for population overflow is required for a country's economy to prosper. But we need look no further than our own shores to find counter-evidence: Cuba has long been able to rid itself of its surplus population by sending people here, and yet its economy has done quite poorly.

is there any key word, which is required to distinguish one from the other?
or is there any broad umbrella term, such as economy prosperity term vs population overflow?
pl guide, i can't distinguish sufficient and necessary thing.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2019, 19:17
nitesh50 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
nitesh50 wrote:
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh


What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.





Hi VeritasKarishma

I know it is not a good habit of comparing questions if their reasonings are different. But I came across a OG question, which uses some of the concept of the above Veritas question.


Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?


(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century


The argument is drawn by using the presence of METAL RINGS as a premise.
The correct option uses metal objects
Why can't we say that metal rings are not part of the metal objects that were traded?
Just as in the Veritas prep question, in which we don't know what % of the companies were software companies, the OG option A do looks similar.


Looking forward to your reply.

Thank you



Nitesh, until and unless a question is on exactly the same format (e.g. a test prep company makes a question based on some official question) as another, they are not comparable.

The options you pointed out are not similar either.
In the OG question, option (A) talks about the complete set of metal objects of which metal rings would be a subset. All metal objects will include metal rings too.
If metal objects were not traded, neither were metal rings because objects includes all objects.
Also note that the question is "useful to evaluate" -Getting a "YES" / "NO" from option (A) increases opposite possibilities.

Mexico learned to make metal rings from Ecuador.

What is useful to evaluate?

(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century
YES - Metal objects were traded. Ok, that leaves the possibility open that metal rings were traded and not made by Mexico.
NO - Metal objects were not traded. That means the metal rings were made in Mexico. That increases the possibility that Mexico learned to make from Ecuador.

In the Veritas question, option (A) is not talking about the complete set of companies which enrolled for the seminar.
Option (A) talks about 95% of the companies which enrolled for the seminar. It does not talk about "all companies which enrolled for the seminar". Hence whatever it says may not be applicable to software companies which enrolled (unlike OG question in which option (A) talked about all metal objects which necessarily includes metal rings).

If option (A) were instead:
(A) Companies that enrol in the consultant’s seminar report that their revenues have increased.
Now, this would weaken the executive's response. If all companies report higher numbers, the seminar may not be bad.

Please note again, comparing two questions is a big waste of time. Every question is different and hence should be evaluated individually.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8891
Location: Pune, India
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2019, 19:42
swapnilce.nitdgp wrote:
Can you please guide me on 'How to distinguish between a sufficient and a necessary condition in a question'?

Following is a question : Historians frequently argue that an outlet for population overflow is required for a country's economy to prosper. But we need look no further than our own shores to find counter-evidence: Cuba has long been able to rid itself of its surplus population by sending people here, and yet its economy has done quite poorly.

is there any key word, which is required to distinguish one from the other?
or is there any broad umbrella term, such as economy prosperity term vs population overflow?
pl guide, i can't distinguish sufficient and necessary thing.


When the statements use "required", "necessary", "needs", "Only if A happens, can B happen" - these are often necessary statement markers.
Check this post for an example: https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2012/1 ... onditions/

For sufficient conditions, you might see "enough", "leads to", "if A happens, B will happen" etc.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR   [#permalink] 16 Feb 2019, 19:42

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   [ 233 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.