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 Aug 2019, 01:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
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:
67% (02:05) correct
33%
(02:34)
wrong
based on 754
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Scientific research at a certain university was supported in part by an annual grant from a major foundation. When the university's physics department embarked on weapons-related research, the foundation, which has purely humanitarian mission, threatened to cancel its grant. The university then promised that none of the foundation's money would be used for the weapons research, whereupon the foundation withdrew its threat, concluding that the weapons research would not benefit from the foundation's grant.
Which of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning underlying the foundation's conclusion?
A) It overlooks the possibility that the availability of the foundation's money for humanitarian uses will allow the university to redirect other funds from humanitarian uses to weapons research.
B) It overlooks the possibility that the physics department's weapons research is not the only one of the university's research activities with other than purely humanitarian purposes.
C) It overlooks the possibility that the university made its promise specifically in order to induce the foundation to withdraw its threat.
D) It confuses the intention of not using a sum of money for a particular purpose with the intention of not using that sum of money at all.
E) It assumes that if the means to achieve an objective are humanitarian in character, then the objective is also humanitarian in character.
Source: PrepTest 7, February 1993 LSAT, Section 4, Question 11
Which of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning underlying the foundation's conclusion?
A) It overlooks the possibility that the availability of the foundation's money for humanitarian uses will allow the university to redirect other funds from humanitarian uses to weapons research.
B) It overlooks the possibility that the physics department's weapons research is not the only one of the university's research activities with other than purely humanitarian purposes.
C) It overlooks the possibility that the university made its promise specifically in order to induce the foundation to withdraw its threat.
D) It confuses the intention of not using a sum of money for a particular purpose with the intention of not using that sum of money at all.
E) It assumes that if the means to achieve an objective are humanitarian in character, then the objective is also humanitarian in character.
Source: PrepTest 7, February 1993 LSAT, Section 4, Question 11
13 Apr 2021, 02:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Xin Cho
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) Yes. The foundation’s grant may allow the university to pay off certain bills, which will free up money for weapons-related research.
(B) No. It is reasonable to assume that it was the first attempt by the university to use the fund for nonhumanitarian scientific research, otherwise the foundation would have probably withdrawn its grant previously.
(C) No. This is too Machiavellian. There’s another answer-choice which is more likely.
(D) No. The foundation understands that the university will still use the money, just not for weapons-related research.
(E) No. This is irrelevant.
General Discussion
21 Oct 2019, 06:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Total fund required for scientific research- say $100
Annual Grant( $60)-supported in part by an annual grant, and remaining from university's fund-$40
weapon related research required say -$70
Humanitarian research required-say-$30
The university then promised that none of the foundation's money would be used for the weapons research
So we use Annual grant in Humanitarian research only, and we will be left with $30 + $40 (from university's fund). And this remaining fund can not be used for weapon related research, But can be used for Humanitarian research. Then Foundation concludes that the weapons research would not benefit from the foundation's grant.
But it fails to assume that the remaining fund can be redirected. if part of the remaining fund is redirected then weapon research would get benefitted from the grant.
This is what A says
B says it fails to assume existence of other research activities, But we are not interested in those activities as argument is particular about grant and its benefit.
A:)
Annual Grant( $60)-supported in part by an annual grant, and remaining from university's fund-$40
weapon related research required say -$70
Humanitarian research required-say-$30
The university then promised that none of the foundation's money would be used for the weapons research
So we use Annual grant in Humanitarian research only, and we will be left with $30 + $40 (from university's fund). And this remaining fund can not be used for weapon related research, But can be used for Humanitarian research. Then Foundation concludes that the weapons research would not benefit from the foundation's grant.
But it fails to assume that the remaining fund can be redirected. if part of the remaining fund is redirected then weapon research would get benefitted from the grant.
This is what A says
B says it fails to assume existence of other research activities, But we are not interested in those activities as argument is particular about grant and its benefit.
A:)
