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 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.
kagrawal16
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Last visit: 01 Dec 2022
Posts: 92
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (S) IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
05 Nov 2020, 00:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi VeritasKarishma,
Request you to help with this question:
As per what i could make out, this question is asking us for a sufficient assumption "If assumed", and if i am right negating a sufficient assumption doesn't necessarily negate conclusion.
Also as per my analysis,
Biologist: Species with broad geographic ranges probably tend to endure longer than species with narrow ranges. The broader a species' range, the more likely that species is to survive the extinction of populations in a few areas. Therefore, it is likely that the proportion of species with broad ranges tends to gradually increase with time.
Conclusion "It is likely that proportion of SBR tends to gradually increase"
Reasoning:
Claim: SBR tend (are more likely) to endure longer than SNR.
Comparison Premise: More broader the range -> More likely species survive the extinction of population in few areas.
Reasoning behind is that since the SNR are less likely to survive extinction of population in few areas they are less likely to endure and so proportion of the other group relative to total (SBR and SNR) will rise.
I could eliminate A/B.
C: I wasn't sure of. I thought it would be necessary for this conclusion. if species can repopulate, then possibly the proportion doesn't increase.
E seems irrelevant. It links the Claim with the premise.
The biologist's conclusion follows logically from the above if which of the following is assumed?
A. There are now more species with broad geographic ranges than with narrow geographic ranges.
There numbers "now" have no bearing on the likeliness to gradually increase.
B. Most species can survive extinctions of populations in a few areas as long as the species' geographic range is not very narrow.
This I believe is given in the premise so cant be the assumption.
The broader a species' range, the more likely that species is to survive the extinction of populations in a few areas
Broader the range, the more likely they survive.
shorter the range, the less likely they survive.
Also B plays on the degree of narrowness.
C. If a population of a species in a particular area dies out, that species generally does not repopulate that area.
D. If a characteristic tends to help species endure longer, then the proportion of species with that characteristic tends to gradually increase with time.
E. Any characteristic that makes a species tend to endure longer will make it easier for that species to survive the extinction of populations in a few areas.
Thanks as always for your help
Request you to help with this question:
As per what i could make out, this question is asking us for a sufficient assumption "If assumed", and if i am right negating a sufficient assumption doesn't necessarily negate conclusion.
Also as per my analysis,
Biologist: Species with broad geographic ranges probably tend to endure longer than species with narrow ranges. The broader a species' range, the more likely that species is to survive the extinction of populations in a few areas. Therefore, it is likely that the proportion of species with broad ranges tends to gradually increase with time.
Conclusion "It is likely that proportion of SBR tends to gradually increase"
Reasoning:
Claim: SBR tend (are more likely) to endure longer than SNR.
Comparison Premise: More broader the range -> More likely species survive the extinction of population in few areas.
Reasoning behind is that since the SNR are less likely to survive extinction of population in few areas they are less likely to endure and so proportion of the other group relative to total (SBR and SNR) will rise.
I could eliminate A/B.
C: I wasn't sure of. I thought it would be necessary for this conclusion. if species can repopulate, then possibly the proportion doesn't increase.
E seems irrelevant. It links the Claim with the premise.
The biologist's conclusion follows logically from the above if which of the following is assumed?
A. There are now more species with broad geographic ranges than with narrow geographic ranges.
There numbers "now" have no bearing on the likeliness to gradually increase.
B. Most species can survive extinctions of populations in a few areas as long as the species' geographic range is not very narrow.
This I believe is given in the premise so cant be the assumption.
The broader a species' range, the more likely that species is to survive the extinction of populations in a few areas
Broader the range, the more likely they survive.
shorter the range, the less likely they survive.
Also B plays on the degree of narrowness.
C. If a population of a species in a particular area dies out, that species generally does not repopulate that area.
D. If a characteristic tends to help species endure longer, then the proportion of species with that characteristic tends to gradually increase with time.
E. Any characteristic that makes a species tend to endure longer will make it easier for that species to survive the extinction of populations in a few areas.
Thanks as always for your help
kagrawal16
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Last visit: 01 Dec 2022
Posts: 92
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (S) IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3
06 Nov 2020, 02:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi VeritasKarishma,
Request your help with this one too. I believe this question is bent toward Weighted Averages.
Also mam, do you have any notes that we can use to tackle such questions.
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?
My reasoning:
We are given 2 things,
Per capita income : Which is nothing but income per 1000 or average.
Percentage of residents: Which is nothing but ratio or weights.
Facts:
Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees. (relative to all)
Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city
University graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates
humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines.
Claim:
Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city
BECAUSE
its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.
Assumption:
All else should be equal. Assumption. Anything that identifies similarity between 2 cities should be indicative answer.
A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
This provides alternate reason. Doesn’t strengthen existing.
B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
B) The percentage of residents with university degree is lower in Metro City than in any other city.
So we can infer that in Metro City, people with University Degree have higher per capita income than other cities.
Within University Degree (UD) group of Metro City, the Health Degree (HD) – Non Health Degree (NHD) ratio could be anything and the per-capita income of NHD could be very high to support a high per capita of UD group.
C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees. Irrelevant.
D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.
D) Per-capita incomes other than HD are no higher. Yet the per capita of the whole group is higher.
We know that per capita of HD is lower than UHD.
So less weight has to be given to HD. So less percentage. (Answer)
E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
E) Proportion of HD/NHD is lower. But Proportion of UD/NUD could be higher. And this could be the main reason. Also nothing is said about the group per capita incomes.
Request your help with this one too. I believe this question is bent toward Weighted Averages.
Also mam, do you have any notes that we can use to tackle such questions.
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?
My reasoning:
We are given 2 things,
Per capita income : Which is nothing but income per 1000 or average.
Percentage of residents: Which is nothing but ratio or weights.
Facts:
Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees. (relative to all)
Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city
University graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates
humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines.
Claim:
Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city
BECAUSE
its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.
Assumption:
All else should be equal. Assumption. Anything that identifies similarity between 2 cities should be indicative answer.
A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
This provides alternate reason. Doesn’t strengthen existing.
B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
B) The percentage of residents with university degree is lower in Metro City than in any other city.
So we can infer that in Metro City, people with University Degree have higher per capita income than other cities.
Within University Degree (UD) group of Metro City, the Health Degree (HD) – Non Health Degree (NHD) ratio could be anything and the per-capita income of NHD could be very high to support a high per capita of UD group.
C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees. Irrelevant.
D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.
D) Per-capita incomes other than HD are no higher. Yet the per capita of the whole group is higher.
We know that per capita of HD is lower than UHD.
So less weight has to be given to HD. So less percentage. (Answer)
E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
E) Proportion of HD/NHD is lower. But Proportion of UD/NUD could be higher. And this could be the main reason. Also nothing is said about the group per capita incomes.
09 Nov 2020, 02:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
kagrawal16
Check this: https://gmatclub.com/forum/biologist-sp ... l#p2658341
You are looking for something that is sufficient for the conclusion, something that will lead to the conclusion. If the conclusion talks about a new aspect, something not discussed in the premises, you know that that aspect must be discussed in your correct option. Keep that in mind and you can eliminate other 4 options immediately.
Check this: https://gmatclub.com/forum/biologist-sp ... l#p2658341
You are looking for something that is sufficient for the conclusion, something that will lead to the conclusion. If the conclusion talks about a new aspect, something not discussed in the premises, you know that that aspect must be discussed in your correct option. Keep that in mind and you can eliminate other 4 options immediately.
kagrawal16
