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 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 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 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.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
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.
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
80% (02:44) correct
20%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 67
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Words such as “only”, “all”, “each”, “every” add special context when added to statements. In this article, we will study how “only” impacts the meaning of a statement and the inferences that you can draw from the same.
While our focus in this article is to learn to draw inferences from single statements, the learnings from this e-GMAT article will help you
1. Prethink in CR questions
2. Solve inference questions in both CR and RC
3. Reject incorrect answer choices
Context from e-GMAT course
This article is a part of skill building part of e-GMAT Inference module. Some of the examples taken in this article are from the same . You may click here to take a look at a few video lessons.
Statement 1
Lets start with a simple example:
Let’s first read the passage and understand its meaning.
This passage talks about impact of an earthquake that happened in the year 1989 in California. It indicates that in this earthquake ONLY the multi-story buildings were destroyed. Now the passage explicitly states that ONLY multi story buildings were destroyed. Carefully observe the word “only”.
Now based on this, lets take a look at a few statements and see which ones we can infer.
1. Single-story buildings in California were not destroyed in the earthquake in 1989.
2. Single-story buildings in California survived in the earthquake in 1989.
3. Multi-story buildings in California did not survive in the earthquake in 1989.
Choice #1 – Single-story buildings …
Because the given statement explicitly states that ONLY multi-story buildings were destroyed in the specified earthquake, we can surely understand that single-story buildings were not destroyed in this earthquake. Therefore, statement 1 is surely an inference:
Notice how by understanding the meaning of the given statement, we could come up with this inference. And notice what we did – we simply understood the entities being talked about in the passage. Think about it this way –
When the author talks about multi-story buildings and he explicitly states that ONLY these buildings were impacted, he indirectly also talks about the other kind of structures - that is the buildings that are not multi-story i.e. single-story buildings or bridges for that matter. So, we get to know that these other structures were not impacted. And hence we can draw inference about these other structures – in the case of statement 1 about the single-story buildings.
So always watch out for words such as “only”. If the author uses the word “only”, then by presenting information about a specific entity, the author also provides information about the other possible entities that may exist.
Choice #2 - Single-story buildings in California survived in the earthquake in 1989
Single-story buildings in California survived in the earthquake in 1989.
Can we infer the above? Surely, we can. Statement #2 is essentially the same as #1 with verb changed. Here we took statement 1 and we changed the context of the verb and we arrived at statement 2 as an inference.
Now look at statement 3 and indicate if it can be inferred from the given statement:
Choice #3 – Multi-Story buildings in California …
We cannot infer statement 3 based on the given statement. Let’s see why:
Evaluating using a simple example
For this purpose, we will consider an example scenario for the passage. And for the sake of representation on this diagram, we will consider small numbers. Let’s say there were 5 multi-story buildings in California (yes, pretty small numbers). And when the earthquake happened, 3 buildings were destroyed. Now per the passage, all these 3 buildings were multi-story buildings. Thus, in the end 2 multi-story buildings were left intact.
So, in this example scenario for the passage, 2 multi-story buildings were indeed left intact or these 2 were not destroyed in the earthquake. And clearly, you can see that the information in the passage goes against what statement 3 states.
Evaluating using Logic
We will also look at this from just the perspective of words.
Statement 3 tells us that multi-story buildings did not survive the earthquake. i.e. none of the multi-story buildings survived the earthquake. Or in other words, all multi-story buildings were destroyed in this earthquake.
Now let’s see if the information in the passage supports this statement.
• Per the passage, we understand that only multi-story buildings were destroyed.
• So, this means that all the buildings that were destroyed were multi-story buildings.
• But see, it does not mean that all the multi-story buildings were destroyed. As we saw in the example considered above, it could be the case that only 3 out of the 5 multi storey buildings could have been destroyed. In such case too, the given information "ONLY multi-story buildings were destroyed..." stands valid.
Thus, the passage does not support statement 3 and hence statement 3 cannot be inferred from the passage.
TakeAway
So to understand what can and what cannot be inferred, at e-GMAT we recommend that first understand the information in the passage and see what entities the given statement talks about. In this case, because of use of word “only”, we automatically got to know about the other kind of entities that exist. And hence we could draw inferences regarding those entities as well.
With this understanding, let’s now take up a full length Inference question.
Inference Question
To eliminate fake news, which is published primarily by bots on its platform, Facebook created a mechanism called Related Articles Correlation (RAC). RAC engine evaluates the content of any article posted on Facebook against the content in trusted related articles using a test called the smell test. Only those articles that pass this test will be published on Facebook. In an expansive study, only articles written by college educated graduates passed the smell test.
If the information above is true, it can be reasonably inferred that
A. Articles published by most sophisticated bots that have been successful in generating content that has fooled most human evaluators will not be published on Facebook.
B. In the near future, all fake content on Facebook will disappear.
C. In many cases, RAC engine will reject articles published by well-educated graduates, especially if these articles do not mention the same information that is mentioned in the corresponding trusted articles.
D. Even the most sophisticated bots that are currently in development are not likely to pass the smell test.
E. The amount of fake news floating on the internet will reduce to a fraction of its present amount as RAC mechanism is implemented by Facebook.
While our focus in this article is to learn to draw inferences from single statements, the learnings from this e-GMAT article will help you
1. Prethink in CR questions
2. Solve inference questions in both CR and RC
3. Reject incorrect answer choices
Context from e-GMAT course
This article is a part of skill building part of e-GMAT Inference module. Some of the examples taken in this article are from the same . You may click here to take a look at a few video lessons.
Statement 1
Lets start with a simple example:
Only multi-story buildings in California were destroyed in the earthquake in 1989.
Let’s first read the passage and understand its meaning.
This passage talks about impact of an earthquake that happened in the year 1989 in California. It indicates that in this earthquake ONLY the multi-story buildings were destroyed. Now the passage explicitly states that ONLY multi story buildings were destroyed. Carefully observe the word “only”.
Now based on this, lets take a look at a few statements and see which ones we can infer.
1. Single-story buildings in California were not destroyed in the earthquake in 1989.
2. Single-story buildings in California survived in the earthquake in 1989.
3. Multi-story buildings in California did not survive in the earthquake in 1989.
Choice #1 – Single-story buildings …
Because the given statement explicitly states that ONLY multi-story buildings were destroyed in the specified earthquake, we can surely understand that single-story buildings were not destroyed in this earthquake. Therefore, statement 1 is surely an inference:
Single-story buildings in California were not destroyed in the earthquake in 1989.
Notice how by understanding the meaning of the given statement, we could come up with this inference. And notice what we did – we simply understood the entities being talked about in the passage. Think about it this way –
When the author talks about multi-story buildings and he explicitly states that ONLY these buildings were impacted, he indirectly also talks about the other kind of structures - that is the buildings that are not multi-story i.e. single-story buildings or bridges for that matter. So, we get to know that these other structures were not impacted. And hence we can draw inference about these other structures – in the case of statement 1 about the single-story buildings.
So always watch out for words such as “only”. If the author uses the word “only”, then by presenting information about a specific entity, the author also provides information about the other possible entities that may exist.
Quote:
Choice #2 - Single-story buildings in California survived in the earthquake in 1989
Single-story buildings in California survived in the earthquake in 1989.
Can we infer the above? Surely, we can. Statement #2 is essentially the same as #1 with verb changed. Here we took statement 1 and we changed the context of the verb and we arrived at statement 2 as an inference.
Now look at statement 3 and indicate if it can be inferred from the given statement:
Choice #3 – Multi-Story buildings in California …
Multi-story buildings in California did not survive in the earthquake in 1989.
We cannot infer statement 3 based on the given statement. Let’s see why:
Evaluating using a simple example
For this purpose, we will consider an example scenario for the passage. And for the sake of representation on this diagram, we will consider small numbers. Let’s say there were 5 multi-story buildings in California (yes, pretty small numbers). And when the earthquake happened, 3 buildings were destroyed. Now per the passage, all these 3 buildings were multi-story buildings. Thus, in the end 2 multi-story buildings were left intact.
So, in this example scenario for the passage, 2 multi-story buildings were indeed left intact or these 2 were not destroyed in the earthquake. And clearly, you can see that the information in the passage goes against what statement 3 states.
Evaluating using Logic
We will also look at this from just the perspective of words.
Statement 3 tells us that multi-story buildings did not survive the earthquake. i.e. none of the multi-story buildings survived the earthquake. Or in other words, all multi-story buildings were destroyed in this earthquake.
Now let’s see if the information in the passage supports this statement.
• Per the passage, we understand that only multi-story buildings were destroyed.
• So, this means that all the buildings that were destroyed were multi-story buildings.
• But see, it does not mean that all the multi-story buildings were destroyed. As we saw in the example considered above, it could be the case that only 3 out of the 5 multi storey buildings could have been destroyed. In such case too, the given information "ONLY multi-story buildings were destroyed..." stands valid.
Thus, the passage does not support statement 3 and hence statement 3 cannot be inferred from the passage.
TakeAway
So to understand what can and what cannot be inferred, at e-GMAT we recommend that first understand the information in the passage and see what entities the given statement talks about. In this case, because of use of word “only”, we automatically got to know about the other kind of entities that exist. And hence we could draw inferences regarding those entities as well.
With this understanding, let’s now take up a full length Inference question.
Inference Question
To eliminate fake news, which is published primarily by bots on its platform, Facebook created a mechanism called Related Articles Correlation (RAC). RAC engine evaluates the content of any article posted on Facebook against the content in trusted related articles using a test called the smell test. Only those articles that pass this test will be published on Facebook. In an expansive study, only articles written by college educated graduates passed the smell test.
If the information above is true, it can be reasonably inferred that
A. Articles published by most sophisticated bots that have been successful in generating content that has fooled most human evaluators will not be published on Facebook.
B. In the near future, all fake content on Facebook will disappear.
C. In many cases, RAC engine will reject articles published by well-educated graduates, especially if these articles do not mention the same information that is mentioned in the corresponding trusted articles.
D. Even the most sophisticated bots that are currently in development are not likely to pass the smell test.
E. The amount of fake news floating on the internet will reduce to a fraction of its present amount as RAC mechanism is implemented by Facebook.
21 Mar 2018, 20:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
urvashis09 - Thank you for submitting the answer. Can you provide your reasoning to support your answer. In other words, why do you thing the platform will reject articles written by well-educated humans.
-Rajat
-Rajat
21 Mar 2018, 20:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument says that RAC evaluates the content against the content in trusted related articles and only the articles that pass will be published. Also, in a study, only articles written by college graduates passed the smell test. So we have two key sources of information before we look at the answer choices:
A. Articles published by most sophisticated bots that have been successful in generating content that has fooled most human evaluators will not be published on Facebook. Information about other successful bots is nowhere stated in the argument hence, this cannot be inferred.
B. In the near future, all fake content on Facebook will disappear. The outcome of using of RAC cannot be inferred from the information given. Exaggerated.
C. In many cases, RAC engine will reject articles published by well-educated graduates, especially if these articles do not mention the same information that is mentioned in the corresponding trusted articles. According to a study, only articles written by college graduates passed the smell test. That means these articles must have had the content similar to that in the trusted articles. But if the articles do not have the same information as in the corresponding trusted articles then they will be rejected as it is the primary condition for passing the smell test. Correct.
D. Even the most sophisticated bots that are currently in development are not likely to pass the smell test. No information in the argument about most sophisticated bots. Can't be inferred.
E. The amount of fake news floating on the internet will reduce to a fraction of its present amount as RAC mechanism is implemented by Facebook. Extreme and exaggerated. The results of using this mechanism is out of scope.
A. Articles published by most sophisticated bots that have been successful in generating content that has fooled most human evaluators will not be published on Facebook. Information about other successful bots is nowhere stated in the argument hence, this cannot be inferred.
B. In the near future, all fake content on Facebook will disappear. The outcome of using of RAC cannot be inferred from the information given. Exaggerated.
C. In many cases, RAC engine will reject articles published by well-educated graduates, especially if these articles do not mention the same information that is mentioned in the corresponding trusted articles. According to a study, only articles written by college graduates passed the smell test. That means these articles must have had the content similar to that in the trusted articles. But if the articles do not have the same information as in the corresponding trusted articles then they will be rejected as it is the primary condition for passing the smell test. Correct.
D. Even the most sophisticated bots that are currently in development are not likely to pass the smell test. No information in the argument about most sophisticated bots. Can't be inferred.
E. The amount of fake news floating on the internet will reduce to a fraction of its present amount as RAC mechanism is implemented by Facebook. Extreme and exaggerated. The results of using this mechanism is out of scope.
