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 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.
Updated on: 13 Jun 2021, 11:21
Originally posted by vichitravir on 13 Jun 2021, 07:57.
Last edited by Bunuel on 13 Jun 2021, 11:21, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 13 Jun 2021, 11:21, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
52% (01:20) correct
48%
(01:30)
wrong
based on 967
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A research discovered that people who have low scores in physics tend to fare poorly in mathematics as compared to people who have average or good scores in physics. The researchers concluded from this experiment that a flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Those who do well in physics do better in mathematics than in pure science.
B. People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics.
C. Mathematics is similar to other pure science subjects in its nature and scope.
D. A flair in mathematics does not help people do well in physics and other pure science subjects.
E. Learning physics at home on one’s own is not as effective as learning it in classrooms.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Those who do well in physics do better in mathematics than in pure science.
B. People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics.
C. Mathematics is similar to other pure science subjects in its nature and scope.
D. A flair in mathematics does not help people do well in physics and other pure science subjects.
E. Learning physics at home on one’s own is not as effective as learning it in classrooms.
30 Jan 2022, 06:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here is the OE
Solution:
Step 1 – Analysing the stimulus and question stem
A research discovered that people who have low scores in physics tend to fare poorly in mathematics as compared to people who have average or good scores in physics.
• Findings of a research:
• People with low physics scores --> perform badly in Maths
• As compared to
• People with average or good scores in physics
• Inference --> People with average or good scores in physics --> perform better in Maths
The researchers concluded from this experiment that a flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
• Conclusion of researchers: A flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
.
Step 2 – Pre-thinking
1. The conclusion contains a causality. The flair in physics is responsible for doing well in Maths.
2. Since we have identified this as a causal argument, let us use the framework for causal arguments to come up with the assumption/s
3. Framework:
a. Identify the Causality
i. Causality
1. Cause: flair in physics
2. Effect: doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
b. Guidelines #1: X happened before Y
i. Assumption#1: The author assumes that people .were not already doing well in Maths and other pure science subjects before they developed a flair in physics.
c. Guideline #2: No alternate cause can lead to the stated effect
i. Assumption#2: The author assumes that nothing other than a flair in physics helped people to do well in Maths and other pure science
d. Guideline#3: No reverse causality
i. Assumption #3: The author also assumes that being good in Maths and other pure science subjects did not help people to develop a flair in physics.
________________________________________
A. Those who do well in physics do better in mathematics than in pure science.
Option A Feedback:
The comparison is not between the performance in Maths and the performance in pure science and how doing well in physics helps more in the former than the latter. This comparison is not within the scope of the argument and does not impact the conclusion in any way. Out of scope.
Incorrect Choice.
B. People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics.
Your Selection
Option B Feedback:
The conclusion is: A flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
Thus “People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics” does support the conclusion. However, this choice is not a must be true condition. Let’s try the Trial by Negation Test.
Negated Choice: People who do well in physics CAN fare poorly in mathematics.
Now even if the above is true, does it break the conclusion? Does it indicate that a flair in Physics cannot help in Maths? No. The entire thing hinges on the word “CAN” which is a possibility.
Thus, this choice is not an assumption.
Incorrect Choice.
C. Mathematics is similar to other pure science subjects in its nature and scope.
Option C Feedback:
The conclusion is about how physics helps to do well in Maths, etc. The issue at hand is not whether Maths is similar to other pure science subjects or whether the similarity is in the nature and scope of the two. This choice is thus irrelevant.
Incorrect Choice.
D. A flair in mathematics does not help people do well in physics and other pure science subjects.
Correct Option
Option D Feedback:
This choice is along the lines of pre-thinking assumption#3.
Correct Choice.
E. Learning physics at home on one’s own is not as effective as learning it in classrooms.
Option E Feedback:
Where one learns physics is irrelevant to the discussion.
Incorrect Choice.
Solution:
Step 1 – Analysing the stimulus and question stem
A research discovered that people who have low scores in physics tend to fare poorly in mathematics as compared to people who have average or good scores in physics.
• Findings of a research:
• People with low physics scores --> perform badly in Maths
• As compared to
• People with average or good scores in physics
• Inference --> People with average or good scores in physics --> perform better in Maths
The researchers concluded from this experiment that a flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
• Conclusion of researchers: A flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
.
Step 2 – Pre-thinking
1. The conclusion contains a causality. The flair in physics is responsible for doing well in Maths.
2. Since we have identified this as a causal argument, let us use the framework for causal arguments to come up with the assumption/s
3. Framework:
a. Identify the Causality
i. Causality
1. Cause: flair in physics
2. Effect: doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
b. Guidelines #1: X happened before Y
i. Assumption#1: The author assumes that people .were not already doing well in Maths and other pure science subjects before they developed a flair in physics.
c. Guideline #2: No alternate cause can lead to the stated effect
i. Assumption#2: The author assumes that nothing other than a flair in physics helped people to do well in Maths and other pure science
d. Guideline#3: No reverse causality
i. Assumption #3: The author also assumes that being good in Maths and other pure science subjects did not help people to develop a flair in physics.
________________________________________
A. Those who do well in physics do better in mathematics than in pure science.
Option A Feedback:
The comparison is not between the performance in Maths and the performance in pure science and how doing well in physics helps more in the former than the latter. This comparison is not within the scope of the argument and does not impact the conclusion in any way. Out of scope.
Incorrect Choice.
B. People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics.
Your Selection
Option B Feedback:
The conclusion is: A flair in physics helps in doing well in mathematics and other pure science subjects.
Thus “People who do well in physics cannot fare poorly in mathematics” does support the conclusion. However, this choice is not a must be true condition. Let’s try the Trial by Negation Test.
Negated Choice: People who do well in physics CAN fare poorly in mathematics.
Now even if the above is true, does it break the conclusion? Does it indicate that a flair in Physics cannot help in Maths? No. The entire thing hinges on the word “CAN” which is a possibility.
Thus, this choice is not an assumption.
Incorrect Choice.
C. Mathematics is similar to other pure science subjects in its nature and scope.
Option C Feedback:
The conclusion is about how physics helps to do well in Maths, etc. The issue at hand is not whether Maths is similar to other pure science subjects or whether the similarity is in the nature and scope of the two. This choice is thus irrelevant.
Incorrect Choice.
D. A flair in mathematics does not help people do well in physics and other pure science subjects.
Correct Option
Option D Feedback:
This choice is along the lines of pre-thinking assumption#3.
Correct Choice.
E. Learning physics at home on one’s own is not as effective as learning it in classrooms.
Option E Feedback:
Where one learns physics is irrelevant to the discussion.
Incorrect Choice.
General Discussion
13 Jun 2021, 08:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
I chose option C (which says incorrect). My reasoning was, that for the researchers to include "other pure science subjects" in the conclusion, they MUST assume that these "other.. subjects" is similar to Math in nature and scope.
But the stated correct answer makes very less sense to me as the argument should be least affected by the correlation of flair in Math with performance in physics and other subjects.
In conclusion, still 80% confident in my answer. Would like to see an expert opinion.
But the stated correct answer makes very less sense to me as the argument should be least affected by the correlation of flair in Math with performance in physics and other subjects.
In conclusion, still 80% confident in my answer. Would like to see an expert opinion.
