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.
26 Aug 2013, 18:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (01:56) correct
37%
(02:08)
wrong
based on 873
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Canadian mining company Bre-X had soil samples from its Busang project examined for gold content in 1992. The positive news of gold being present attracted a range of investors - from unsophisticated individuals to saavy mining professionals - to invest in the Busang project. After years of successful promotion, the truth about this worthless property slowly emerged early in 1997 and drove Bre-X stock prices nearly to zero. A repeat analysis of the soil in 1997 indicated very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content in 1992 must have been inaccurate.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The gold content of the soil in Busang was much lower in 1997 than it was in 1992.
(B) After 1992, Bre-X was not mining in the same areas of Busang that the sample was taken from.
(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples in 1992 were different from those generally used during that time.
(D) Bre-X did not have soil samples from any other Busang property examined for gold content.
(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Bre-X before the samples were examined.
Original Source: Practice Pill Platform
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The gold content of the soil in Busang was much lower in 1997 than it was in 1992.
(B) After 1992, Bre-X was not mining in the same areas of Busang that the sample was taken from.
(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples in 1992 were different from those generally used during that time.
(D) Bre-X did not have soil samples from any other Busang property examined for gold content.
(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Bre-X before the samples were examined.
Original Source: Practice Pill Platform
HBSdetermined
26 Aug 2013, 19:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATPill
Conclusion: Thus the methods used to determine the gold content in 1992 must have been inaccurate.
Premise: Conflicting predictions of gold content in 1992 and 1997
Pre-thinking: The author is strongly blaming the Method to be inaccurate. So anything in the answer choices which helps us support that the METHOD is the only one which is INACCURATE and not anything else affecting the protocol would be the correct answer
POE
A- if the gold content was lower in 1997 than in 1992-it supports the fact the method was accurate in estimating gold in 1992
B- If they were no mining in the same area, it does not affect the conclusion of methods being inaccurate
C- If the methods were different, again the methods could have different sensitivity ranges to estimate gold content and still being accurate in its own ways
D- Even if there were soil samples not analyzed from different Busang properties, it cannot verify the accuracies of any method
E- Now, if the Gold was not added to the soil samples before estimation in 1992, it gives support to the fact that it was the method and nothing in the protocol which led to inaccurate results.
negating E- gold was ADDED to the soil sample destroys the conclusion that it was the addition of gold prior to the analysis which led to inaccurate results and not the method per say!
hence E
Waiting official explanation from Gmat-pill
thanks
Hi chesstitans
If there was a possibility that gold was added to the samples before the 1992 test (meaning that the samples didn't contain gold naturally, that someone added gold to them), then there is another possible explanation for the difference in measurements between 1992 and 1997.
Since this gives another possible explanation for the result, you can't conclude from this that the method MUST have been inaccurate. In the case in which someone added gold to the sample for the 1992 test, the method could have still been accurate, (if someone added gold, then the soil actually did contain that much gold and was measured correctly).
Therefore, to conclude that the method must have been inaccurate, you have to assume that no one added gold to the sample for the 1992 test. Or else, there could have been another cause for the difference.
Sometimes it helps for questions like this when such a definitive statement is made (this was the result, so this MUST have been the cause...) to consider whether any of the choices involve another event that could have caused the result. If it does, then the argument makes an implicit assumption that it didn't take place.
An example: if a coworker was late today and you argued it MUST be because there was traffic, you're implicitly assuming that he didn't leave his house an hour too late.
Sorry for the long explanation. Hope this helps
If there was a possibility that gold was added to the samples before the 1992 test (meaning that the samples didn't contain gold naturally, that someone added gold to them), then there is another possible explanation for the difference in measurements between 1992 and 1997.
Since this gives another possible explanation for the result, you can't conclude from this that the method MUST have been inaccurate. In the case in which someone added gold to the sample for the 1992 test, the method could have still been accurate, (if someone added gold, then the soil actually did contain that much gold and was measured correctly).
Therefore, to conclude that the method must have been inaccurate, you have to assume that no one added gold to the sample for the 1992 test. Or else, there could have been another cause for the difference.
Sometimes it helps for questions like this when such a definitive statement is made (this was the result, so this MUST have been the cause...) to consider whether any of the choices involve another event that could have caused the result. If it does, then the argument makes an implicit assumption that it didn't take place.
An example: if a coworker was late today and you argued it MUST be because there was traffic, you're implicitly assuming that he didn't leave his house an hour too late.
Sorry for the long explanation. Hope this helps
