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.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
11 Dec 2010, 08:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
30% (01:50) correct
70%
(01:54)
wrong
based on 798
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Parent P: Children will need computer skills to deal with tomorrow’s world. Computers should be introduced in kindergarten, and computer languages should be required in high school.
Parent O: That would be pointless. Technology advances so rapidly that the computers used by today’s high schools would become obsolete by the time these children are adults.
Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest logical counter parent P can make to parent Q’s objection?
(A) When technology is advancing rapidly, regular training is necessary to keep one’s skills at a level proficient enough to deal with the society in which one lives.
(B) Throughout history people have adapted to change, and there is no reason to believe that today’s children are not equally capable of adapting to technology as it advances.
(C) In the process of learning the language, children increase their ability to interact with computer technology.
(D) Automotive technology is continually advancing too, but that does not result in one’s having to relearn to drive cars as the new advances are incorporated into new automobiles.
(E) Once people have graduated from high school, they have less time to learn about computers and technology than they had during their schooling years.
Parent O: That would be pointless. Technology advances so rapidly that the computers used by today’s high schools would become obsolete by the time these children are adults.
Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest logical counter parent P can make to parent Q’s objection?
(A) When technology is advancing rapidly, regular training is necessary to keep one’s skills at a level proficient enough to deal with the society in which one lives.
(B) Throughout history people have adapted to change, and there is no reason to believe that today’s children are not equally capable of adapting to technology as it advances.
(C) In the process of learning the language, children increase their ability to interact with computer technology.
(D) Automotive technology is continually advancing too, but that does not result in one’s having to relearn to drive cars as the new advances are incorporated into new automobiles.
(E) Once people have graduated from high school, they have less time to learn about computers and technology than they had during their schooling years.
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 22 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,769
Given Kudos: 3,305
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
12 Apr 2019, 05:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
A lot of people seem to be struggling with C and D, so let's break them down.
Parent P: Children will need computer skills to deal with tomorrow’s world. Computers should be introduced in kindergarten, and computer languages should be required in high school.
Parent O: That would be pointless. Technology advances so rapidly that the computers used by today’s high schools would become obsolete by the time these children are adults.
Breakdown:
1. We should teach our kids technology at a young age
Counter: It won't do them any good because it evolves
Fairly straightforward stem, but we want to weaken the counter (or strengthen the first parent's claim). How can we do this? By showing some tangible benefit or by showing that the counter is inaccurate.
Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest logical counter parent P can make to parent Q’s objection?
(A) When technology is advancing rapidly, regular training is necessary to keep one’s skills at a level proficient enough to deal with the society in which one lives. -- This weakens the argument, so out.
(B) Throughout history people have adapted to change, and there is no reason to believe that today’s children are not equally capable of adapting to technology as it advances. -- OK, but how does this help us? It is great that we adapt, but how does that strengthen the idea that we should teach something at a young age. This just says that it will be irrelevant whether we teach them or don't teach them. Technically weakens us, so out.
(C) In the process of learning the language, children increase their ability to interact with computer technology. -- So the technology they learn helps them with future ability with this future tech. Bingo! If this is true, then it does not matter if they utilize the same technology. They will have learned something and will be able to adapt to new stuff quicker. Perfect answer, and sort of what (B) was trying to say.
(D) Automotive technology is continually advancing too, but that does not result in one’s having to relearn to drive cars as the new advances are incorporated into new automobiles. --OK, cool. An analogy is fine, but this is wrong for two reasons. First, the analogy is WAY off. There are far too many issues to parallel to our argument (chief among them, the early age difference; this talks about adult learning). Second, when we think about questions that talk about town A and town B, there is always a trap answer that says how similar town A and B are; but this doesn't help our argument. These are two different situations, just as the towns are two different areas.
(E) Once people have graduated from high school, they have less time to learn about computers and technology than they had during their schooling years. -- OK, this is trying to bait you into assuming that because high school graduates don't have time, then we should learn it at a young age. But, who cares? Maybe they can learn it in Middle School. This doesn't do anything for our argument.
Parent P: Children will need computer skills to deal with tomorrow’s world. Computers should be introduced in kindergarten, and computer languages should be required in high school.
Parent O: That would be pointless. Technology advances so rapidly that the computers used by today’s high schools would become obsolete by the time these children are adults.
Breakdown:
1. We should teach our kids technology at a young age
Counter: It won't do them any good because it evolves
Fairly straightforward stem, but we want to weaken the counter (or strengthen the first parent's claim). How can we do this? By showing some tangible benefit or by showing that the counter is inaccurate.
Which one of the following, if true, is the strongest logical counter parent P can make to parent Q’s objection?
(A) When technology is advancing rapidly, regular training is necessary to keep one’s skills at a level proficient enough to deal with the society in which one lives. -- This weakens the argument, so out.
(B) Throughout history people have adapted to change, and there is no reason to believe that today’s children are not equally capable of adapting to technology as it advances. -- OK, but how does this help us? It is great that we adapt, but how does that strengthen the idea that we should teach something at a young age. This just says that it will be irrelevant whether we teach them or don't teach them. Technically weakens us, so out.
(C) In the process of learning the language, children increase their ability to interact with computer technology. -- So the technology they learn helps them with future ability with this future tech. Bingo! If this is true, then it does not matter if they utilize the same technology. They will have learned something and will be able to adapt to new stuff quicker. Perfect answer, and sort of what (B) was trying to say.
(D) Automotive technology is continually advancing too, but that does not result in one’s having to relearn to drive cars as the new advances are incorporated into new automobiles. --OK, cool. An analogy is fine, but this is wrong for two reasons. First, the analogy is WAY off. There are far too many issues to parallel to our argument (chief among them, the early age difference; this talks about adult learning). Second, when we think about questions that talk about town A and town B, there is always a trap answer that says how similar town A and B are; but this doesn't help our argument. These are two different situations, just as the towns are two different areas.
(E) Once people have graduated from high school, they have less time to learn about computers and technology than they had during their schooling years. -- OK, this is trying to bait you into assuming that because high school graduates don't have time, then we should learn it at a young age. But, who cares? Maybe they can learn it in Middle School. This doesn't do anything for our argument.
General Discussion
