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 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 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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
20 Jan 2020, 09:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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:
70% (02:15) correct
30%
(02:21)
wrong
based on 754
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United States were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.
Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.
Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made?
(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth.
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so-even if they died for some other reason.
(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000.
(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy.
(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half.
Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.
Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made?
(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth.
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so-even if they died for some other reason.
(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000.
(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy.
(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half.
03 Feb 2020, 10:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth. This doesn't clarify Leonas claim, rather states an exception state where her claim would be possible
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so-even if they died for some other reason. This correctly clarifies Ls claim AND addresses Ts point. As per this 5,000 lives are getting saved per year (Ls point) and addresses Ts point "if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been."
(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000. Irrelevant
(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy. OOS
(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half. Again OOS and irrelevant to our points
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so-even if they died for some other reason. This correctly clarifies Ls claim AND addresses Ts point. As per this 5,000 lives are getting saved per year (Ls point) and addresses Ts point "if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been."
(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000. Irrelevant
(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy. OOS
(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half. Again OOS and irrelevant to our points
16 Aug 2023, 07:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
This took me a while but here's my reasoning.
Analysis stem
- Leona basically says that if the average consumption of eggs in the US were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.
- Thomas argues that this would mean that if people adopt this change into their diets for the upcoming 10 years, the population 10 years from now will be greater by 50,000 people that it otherwise would have been if the people did not adopt the change.
Question: how could Leona clarify her own claim and address the point Thomas made?
Approach
Which statement strengthens/provides a reason for Leona's claim while taking Thomas's claim into consideration?
Answer choices
(A) this choice doesn't take both statements into consideration. To me it felt kinda like cheating the system (picking and choosing), since this choice would "only" work if the base year chosen, for comparison, is one with an unusually low population growth. So I would eliminate this option.
(B) this choice strengthens Leona's claim by saying that if her statement is taken into consideration, we could still say that 5,000 have been saved. If 5,000 people did not change their diet they would've died, but with her consideration they would have lived, and therefore there would be 5,000 lives saved. This also helps Thomas's claim, since the population 10 years from now would be 50,000 richer (since they brought the change into their diets, and didn't die). Both statements are taken into consideration, so keep this one.
(C) this choice takes Leona's statement into consideration by saying that the estimated # of lives could be > 5,000. But this doesn't address the point Thomas made. So eliminate this one.
(D) this one seems like an easy elimination. There are other factors involved which do not provide a strong enough support, in comparison with option B. Although you could perhaps "overthink" this one, I always eliminate by the following: if I already got an answer choice that provides a stronger, or more logical, reason I'll stick by that one and eliminate the answer choice I'm overthinking/struggling with. Since B provides a stronger support + takes both claims into consideration, eliminate this one.
(E) this choice again does not take both Leona's and Thomas's claims into consideration. There is another factor into consideration, where people would have to cut their own consumption as well (aside from the eggs), this was not the intended meaning of Leona, so eliminate this one.
Answer: B
Analysis stem
- Leona basically says that if the average consumption of eggs in the US were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.
- Thomas argues that this would mean that if people adopt this change into their diets for the upcoming 10 years, the population 10 years from now will be greater by 50,000 people that it otherwise would have been if the people did not adopt the change.
Question: how could Leona clarify her own claim and address the point Thomas made?
Approach
Which statement strengthens/provides a reason for Leona's claim while taking Thomas's claim into consideration?
Answer choices
(A) this choice doesn't take both statements into consideration. To me it felt kinda like cheating the system (picking and choosing), since this choice would "only" work if the base year chosen, for comparison, is one with an unusually low population growth. So I would eliminate this option.
(B) this choice strengthens Leona's claim by saying that if her statement is taken into consideration, we could still say that 5,000 have been saved. If 5,000 people did not change their diet they would've died, but with her consideration they would have lived, and therefore there would be 5,000 lives saved. This also helps Thomas's claim, since the population 10 years from now would be 50,000 richer (since they brought the change into their diets, and didn't die). Both statements are taken into consideration, so keep this one.
(C) this choice takes Leona's statement into consideration by saying that the estimated # of lives could be > 5,000. But this doesn't address the point Thomas made. So eliminate this one.
(D) this one seems like an easy elimination. There are other factors involved which do not provide a strong enough support, in comparison with option B. Although you could perhaps "overthink" this one, I always eliminate by the following: if I already got an answer choice that provides a stronger, or more logical, reason I'll stick by that one and eliminate the answer choice I'm overthinking/struggling with. Since B provides a stronger support + takes both claims into consideration, eliminate this one.
(E) this choice again does not take both Leona's and Thomas's claims into consideration. There is another factor into consideration, where people would have to cut their own consumption as well (aside from the eggs), this was not the intended meaning of Leona, so eliminate this one.
Answer: B
