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 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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2212:30 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.
30 Mar 2020, 05:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
56% (02:24) correct
44%
(02:30)
wrong
based on 907
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Eva: A “smart highway” system should be installed, one that would monitor areawide traffic patterns and communicate with computers in vehicles or with programmable highway signs to give drivers information about traffic congestion and alternate routes. Such a system, we can infer, would result in improved traffic flow in and around cities that would do more than improve drivers’ tempers; it would decrease the considerable loss of money and productivity that now results from traffic congestion.
Luis: There are already traffic reports on the radio. Why would a “smart highway” system be any better?
Eva’s argument depends on the assumption that
(A) on “smart highways” there would not be the breakdowns of vehicles that currently cause traffic congestion
(B) traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would assure a free flow of traffic
(C) traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant improvement is impossible
(D) the type of equipment used in “smart highway” systems would vary from one city to another
(E) older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a “smart highway” system
Luis: There are already traffic reports on the radio. Why would a “smart highway” system be any better?
Eva’s argument depends on the assumption that
(A) on “smart highways” there would not be the breakdowns of vehicles that currently cause traffic congestion
(B) traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would assure a free flow of traffic
(C) traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant improvement is impossible
(D) the type of equipment used in “smart highway” systems would vary from one city to another
(E) older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a “smart highway” system
06 Apr 2020, 12:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let's do it!
Eva's conclusion: some sort of system that would monitor and bla bla bla => would result in improved traffic (will improve driver's temper and will decrease loss of productivity)
Lui's point: if we have radio why do we need this improvement?
Options
(A) on “smart highways” there would not be the breakdowns of vehicles that currently cause traffic congestion
Comment: lets see, "there would not be the breakdowns", can we know this from the given information? Absolutely Not, it will support the conclusion? Yeah maybe, because it is pointing out a benefit of the system, but it is not an assumption at all.
(B) traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would assure a free flow of traffic
Comment: Again, can we know this from the given information? Absolutely Not, it will support the conclusion? Yeah maybe, but how the system works is not a relevant assumption.
(C) traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant improvement is impossible
Comment: Ok, all this improvement assumes that traffic is absolutely "improvable" right? otherwise the plan is hollow. Lets try negating it, traffic flow in and around cities is now so congested that significant improvement is impossible, it shatters the conclusion which is about If this is done => you will get these results
(D) the type of equipment used in “smart highway” systems would vary from one city to another
Comment: MAYYYBE, do we need this one? nah
(E) older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a “smart highway” system
Comment: MAYYYBE, do we need this one? nah
(C) is the answer
Best
Eva's conclusion: some sort of system that would monitor and bla bla bla => would result in improved traffic (will improve driver's temper and will decrease loss of productivity)
Lui's point: if we have radio why do we need this improvement?
Options
(A) on “smart highways” there would not be the breakdowns of vehicles that currently cause traffic congestion
Comment: lets see, "there would not be the breakdowns", can we know this from the given information? Absolutely Not, it will support the conclusion? Yeah maybe, because it is pointing out a benefit of the system, but it is not an assumption at all.
(B) traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would assure a free flow of traffic
Comment: Again, can we know this from the given information? Absolutely Not, it will support the conclusion? Yeah maybe, but how the system works is not a relevant assumption.
(C) traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant improvement is impossible
Comment: Ok, all this improvement assumes that traffic is absolutely "improvable" right? otherwise the plan is hollow. Lets try negating it, traffic flow in and around cities is now so congested that significant improvement is impossible, it shatters the conclusion which is about If this is done => you will get these results
(D) the type of equipment used in “smart highway” systems would vary from one city to another
Comment: MAYYYBE, do we need this one? nah
(E) older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a “smart highway” system
Comment: MAYYYBE, do we need this one? nah
(C) is the answer
Best
07 Apr 2020, 05:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Would option B be wrong because -
If we negate the statement it becomes - 'traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would NOT assure a free flow of traffic'. Eva's point is - implementing the smart highway system will result in improved traffic flow, and not a free flow of traffic. Thus, not assuring a free flow of traffic does not mean it is not assuring atleast some improvement in the traffic flow. So the negated statement does not break the conclusion.
If we negate the statement it becomes - 'traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would NOT assure a free flow of traffic'. Eva's point is - implementing the smart highway system will result in improved traffic flow, and not a free flow of traffic. Thus, not assuring a free flow of traffic does not mean it is not assuring atleast some improvement in the traffic flow. So the negated statement does not break the conclusion.
