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 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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (01:40) correct
36%
(01:45)
wrong
based on 1704
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The increase in the number of newspaper articles exposed as fabrications serves to bolster the contention that publishers are more interested in boosting circulation than in printing the truth. Even minor publications have staffs to check such obvious fraud.
The argument above assumes that
A. Newspaper stories exposed as fabrications are a recent phenomenon.
B. Everything a newspaper prints must be factually verifiable.
C. Fact checking is more comprehensive for minor publications than for major ones.
D. Only recently have newspapers admitted to publishing intentionally fraudulent stories.
E. The publishers of newspapers are the people who decide what to print in their newspapers.
The argument above assumes that
A. Newspaper stories exposed as fabrications are a recent phenomenon.
B. Everything a newspaper prints must be factually verifiable.
C. Fact checking is more comprehensive for minor publications than for major ones.
D. Only recently have newspapers admitted to publishing intentionally fraudulent stories.
E. The publishers of newspapers are the people who decide what to print in their newspapers.
23 Dec 2011, 23:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi micr0c0sm,
First of all, I do not think the OA is debatable. The answer is crystal clear. It is in fact a very simple logic gap to be filled up. The correct answer E is absolutely correct.
For all others who are not sure about the OA, the OA is E. This question is from Kaplan Premier book. In case you are interested in the OE, here is Kaplan's OE:
There are actually many assumptions in this argument, so it's entirely possible that you made a valid prephrase even if you didn't find the answer right away. The argument basically states that because more newspaper articles are being exposed as fabrications, publishers must care more about raising circulation than printing the truth. There are two scope shifts here:
1. The author gives evidence about newspaper articles but draws a conclusion about publishers
2. The author shifts from fabrications to boosted circulation.
So if your prephrase was something like either
1. Publishers have influence over newspaper articles or
2. Fabricated articles boost circulation
then give yourself a pat on the back, because you were right. It so happens that the GMAT used (1) as the basis of the right answer - you can see that it matches with (E) quite nicely. So you may have needed the Denial Test (Negation approach) to evaluate the answer choices. Let's examine them that way.
(A) What if newspaper articles have been exposed as fake for a while? That wouldn't mean that such exposures couldn't have been on the rise lately.
(B) What if not everything a newspaper prints can be factually verifiable? Again, allowing a handful of unverified articles in a year does not mean that the number of such articles has not been on the rise.
(C) What if major publications were as good at fact-checking as minor ones? That certainly would not damage the author's argument - if anything, it would strengthen it !
(D) is very similar to (A) - newspapers could have been admitting to this behavior for a while, and that would not mean that the behavior is not on the rise.
But if we deny (E) and claim that publishers make no decisions about what is printed, then it is hardly possible to pin the blame for the fabrications on them, and the argument collapses.
The above is what Kaplan had to say about the OA and I completely agree with it. The OA is not debatable at all. E is the OA.
First of all, I do not think the OA is debatable. The answer is crystal clear. It is in fact a very simple logic gap to be filled up. The correct answer E is absolutely correct.
For all others who are not sure about the OA, the OA is E. This question is from Kaplan Premier book. In case you are interested in the OE, here is Kaplan's OE:
There are actually many assumptions in this argument, so it's entirely possible that you made a valid prephrase even if you didn't find the answer right away. The argument basically states that because more newspaper articles are being exposed as fabrications, publishers must care more about raising circulation than printing the truth. There are two scope shifts here:
1. The author gives evidence about newspaper articles but draws a conclusion about publishers
2. The author shifts from fabrications to boosted circulation.
So if your prephrase was something like either
1. Publishers have influence over newspaper articles or
2. Fabricated articles boost circulation
then give yourself a pat on the back, because you were right. It so happens that the GMAT used (1) as the basis of the right answer - you can see that it matches with (E) quite nicely. So you may have needed the Denial Test (Negation approach) to evaluate the answer choices. Let's examine them that way.
(A) What if newspaper articles have been exposed as fake for a while? That wouldn't mean that such exposures couldn't have been on the rise lately.
(B) What if not everything a newspaper prints can be factually verifiable? Again, allowing a handful of unverified articles in a year does not mean that the number of such articles has not been on the rise.
(C) What if major publications were as good at fact-checking as minor ones? That certainly would not damage the author's argument - if anything, it would strengthen it !
(D) is very similar to (A) - newspapers could have been admitting to this behavior for a while, and that would not mean that the behavior is not on the rise.
But if we deny (E) and claim that publishers make no decisions about what is printed, then it is hardly possible to pin the blame for the fabrications on them, and the argument collapses.
The above is what Kaplan had to say about the OA and I completely agree with it. The OA is not debatable at all. E is the OA.
General Discussion
20 Feb 2017, 16:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument made is this -
Increase in numbers of articles exposed as fake --> Publishers are interested in boosting circulation than in printing the truth.
Let us look at each of the answer options -
Option A - Incorrect.
the argument clearly states that there has been an increase in the number of articles exposed as fabrications. this implies that exposing articles as fabrications is not entirely recent. Only, the increase is recent.
Option B - Incorrect.
Negate this.
"Some of the articles published must be factually verifiable". This does not destroy the argument. If there is an increase in number of fabricated stories among those that can be verified, the argument made still stands.
Option C - Incorrect.
We are talking about all publications in general for the argument.
Option D - Incorrect.
We have no idea whether the publications have admitted to such things. Moreover, we do not know whether they have done so only recently or from some time.
Option E - Correct answer.
If publishers have NO control on what to print, then the conclusion that Publishers are more interested in boosting circulation than printing the truth will collapse.
Increase in numbers of articles exposed as fake --> Publishers are interested in boosting circulation than in printing the truth.
Let us look at each of the answer options -
Option A - Incorrect.
the argument clearly states that there has been an increase in the number of articles exposed as fabrications. this implies that exposing articles as fabrications is not entirely recent. Only, the increase is recent.
Option B - Incorrect.
Negate this.
"Some of the articles published must be factually verifiable". This does not destroy the argument. If there is an increase in number of fabricated stories among those that can be verified, the argument made still stands.
Option C - Incorrect.
We are talking about all publications in general for the argument.
Option D - Incorrect.
We have no idea whether the publications have admitted to such things. Moreover, we do not know whether they have done so only recently or from some time.
Option E - Correct answer.
If publishers have NO control on what to print, then the conclusion that Publishers are more interested in boosting circulation than printing the truth will collapse.
