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 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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
19 Aug 2024, 23:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
83% (01:46) correct
17%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 493
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
McGregor: Business book trends often signal the bursting of market bubbles. Real estate titles filled the U.S. bestseller list in 2007, before the bubble in U.S. real estate values burst. And in the 1990s there was a sharp increase in the number of titles about technology stocks before the market in technology stocks collapsed. This shows that when books are written in response to investment trends, the time it takes for them to reach publication is typically the time it takes for a growing bubble to burst.
Levinson: You are ignoring the effects that business books can have on business. It could be that business books lead too many people into speculation in particular areas, thus triggering further inflation of a market that then collapses.
Levinson responds to McGregor by:
(A) suggesting that McGregor's position is implausible
(B) providing a counterexample to McGregor's generalization
(C) suggesting that McGregor has failed to consider the possibility of a certain causal relationship
(D) arguing that the relationship described by McGregor is not a causal relationship
(E) describing an analogous situation in which McGregor's generalization does not hold
Levinson: You are ignoring the effects that business books can have on business. It could be that business books lead too many people into speculation in particular areas, thus triggering further inflation of a market that then collapses.
Levinson responds to McGregor by:
(A) suggesting that McGregor's position is implausible
(B) providing a counterexample to McGregor's generalization
(C) suggesting that McGregor has failed to consider the possibility of a certain causal relationship
(D) arguing that the relationship described by McGregor is not a causal relationship
(E) describing an analogous situation in which McGregor's generalization does not hold
Question exposed a gap?
Take sectional Adaptive Quant, Verbal, or DI tests on GMAT Club and review the detailed score report.
Get started →
20 Aug 2024, 00:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
I thought of it is as:
McG: books => bursting market bubbles
Lev: books => speculation => inflation of market => burst market bubbles
Lev basically brings in more points / external factors that could lead to bubble burst that show that the relationship isn't as direct as McG implies.
Answer choices:
A- no he's not overturning McG's position
B- no not providing counterexample, he's providing other factors that impact
C- yeah, suggesting that missing two other factors that contribute to bursting market bubble
D- not arguing it's not causal, hes just saying that some other things lead to the causality
E- no analogous situation is provided
McG: books => bursting market bubbles
Lev: books => speculation => inflation of market => burst market bubbles
Lev basically brings in more points / external factors that could lead to bubble burst that show that the relationship isn't as direct as McG implies.
Answer choices:
A- no he's not overturning McG's position
B- no not providing counterexample, he's providing other factors that impact
C- yeah, suggesting that missing two other factors that contribute to bursting market bubble
D- not arguing it's not causal, hes just saying that some other things lead to the causality
E- no analogous situation is provided
24 Aug 2024, 17:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
McGregor: Business book trends often signal the bursting of market bubbles. Real estate titles filled the U.S. bestseller list in 2007, before the bubble in U.S. real estate values burst. And in the 1990s there was a sharp increase in the number of titles about technology stocks before the market in technology stocks collapsed. This shows that when books are written in response to investment trends, the time it takes for them to reach publication is typically the time it takes for a growing bubble to burst.
Analyzing McGregor's argument, we see that the conclusion is the following:
when books are written in response to investment trends, the time it takes for them to reach publication is typically the time it takes for a growing bubble to burst
The support for McGregor's conclusion is the following:
Business book trends often signal the bursting of market bubbles. Real estate titles filled the U.S. bestseller list in 2007, before the bubble in U.S. real estate values burst. And in the 1990s there was a sharp increase in the number of titles about technology stocks before the market in technology stocks collapsed.
One thing that may jump out at us is that McGregor's argument is a little vague. It mentions real estate titles filling the U.S. bestseller market and an increase in the number of titles about technology stocks "before" market bubbles burst, but it doesn't make clear how long before the bubbles burst many books on the topics came out.
Levinson: You are ignoring the effects that business books can have on business. It could be that business books lead too many people into speculation in particular areas, thus triggering further inflation of a market that then collapses.
Levinson's response in a way attacks the vagueness of McGregor's argument.
McGregor says that the appearance of the books and the collapse occur in sequence just because it happens to be that many books on an area of investment will happen to come out soon before a crash without saying how close in time the coming out of the books and the crashes are.
Then, Levinson indicates that the collapses do not occur right away when books come out but actually occur a while after the books come out and are in part the result of bubbles caused by the books.
Levinson responds to McGregor by:
This question is Method of Reasoning question, and the correct answer will accurately describe how Levinson's response works.
(A) suggesting that McGregor's position is implausible
Levinson does not suggest that McGregor's position is "implausbile," meaning improbable or unbelievable.
Rather, Levinson suggests that there is a different plausbile way in which the books and the bursting of market bubbles may be related.
Eliminate.
(B) providing a counterexample to McGregor's generalization
Levinson does not "provide a counterexample." Rather, Levinson discusses the same examples but provides a new explanation for them.
Eliminate.
(C) suggesting that McGregor has failed to consider the possibility of a certain causal relationship
This choice accurately describes how Levinson's argument works.
Levinson says that McGregor is "ignoring the effects that business books can have on business." We see that Levinson is saying that McGregor has failed to consider that books cause certain effects on business.
Then Levinson says, "It could be that business books lead too many people into speculation in particular areas, thus triggering further inflation of a market that then collapses."
Once again, in suggesting that "books lead people into speculation ... triggering further inflation of a market," Levinson is discussing a "causal relationship" between books and bursting of market bubbles that McGregor has not considered.
So, we can see that Levinson's argument does in fact work through "suggesting that McGregor has failed to consider the possibility of a certain causal relationship."
Keep.
(D) arguing that the relationship described by McGregor is not a causal relationship
This choice is basically an opposite trap.
The relationship between McGregor's and Levinson's arguments is not that McGregor suggests that there is a causal relationship and Levinson says that it's not a causal relationship. Rather, the relationship between the two arguments is that McGregor explains the situation without indicating that there is a causal relationship and Levinson suggests that there is one.
Eliminate.
(E) describing an analogous situation in which McGregor's generalization does not hold
Levinson does not bring up "an analogous situation." Rather, Levinson continues to discuss the same situation and brings up a new idea about that situatoin.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
Analyzing McGregor's argument, we see that the conclusion is the following:
when books are written in response to investment trends, the time it takes for them to reach publication is typically the time it takes for a growing bubble to burst
The support for McGregor's conclusion is the following:
Business book trends often signal the bursting of market bubbles. Real estate titles filled the U.S. bestseller list in 2007, before the bubble in U.S. real estate values burst. And in the 1990s there was a sharp increase in the number of titles about technology stocks before the market in technology stocks collapsed.
One thing that may jump out at us is that McGregor's argument is a little vague. It mentions real estate titles filling the U.S. bestseller market and an increase in the number of titles about technology stocks "before" market bubbles burst, but it doesn't make clear how long before the bubbles burst many books on the topics came out.
Levinson: You are ignoring the effects that business books can have on business. It could be that business books lead too many people into speculation in particular areas, thus triggering further inflation of a market that then collapses.
Levinson's response in a way attacks the vagueness of McGregor's argument.
McGregor says that the appearance of the books and the collapse occur in sequence just because it happens to be that many books on an area of investment will happen to come out soon before a crash without saying how close in time the coming out of the books and the crashes are.
Then, Levinson indicates that the collapses do not occur right away when books come out but actually occur a while after the books come out and are in part the result of bubbles caused by the books.
Levinson responds to McGregor by:
This question is Method of Reasoning question, and the correct answer will accurately describe how Levinson's response works.
(A) suggesting that McGregor's position is implausible
Levinson does not suggest that McGregor's position is "implausbile," meaning improbable or unbelievable.
Rather, Levinson suggests that there is a different plausbile way in which the books and the bursting of market bubbles may be related.
Eliminate.
(B) providing a counterexample to McGregor's generalization
Levinson does not "provide a counterexample." Rather, Levinson discusses the same examples but provides a new explanation for them.
Eliminate.
(C) suggesting that McGregor has failed to consider the possibility of a certain causal relationship
This choice accurately describes how Levinson's argument works.
Levinson says that McGregor is "ignoring the effects that business books can have on business." We see that Levinson is saying that McGregor has failed to consider that books cause certain effects on business.
Then Levinson says, "It could be that business books lead too many people into speculation in particular areas, thus triggering further inflation of a market that then collapses."
Once again, in suggesting that "books lead people into speculation ... triggering further inflation of a market," Levinson is discussing a "causal relationship" between books and bursting of market bubbles that McGregor has not considered.
So, we can see that Levinson's argument does in fact work through "suggesting that McGregor has failed to consider the possibility of a certain causal relationship."
Keep.
(D) arguing that the relationship described by McGregor is not a causal relationship
This choice is basically an opposite trap.
The relationship between McGregor's and Levinson's arguments is not that McGregor suggests that there is a causal relationship and Levinson says that it's not a causal relationship. Rather, the relationship between the two arguments is that McGregor explains the situation without indicating that there is a causal relationship and Levinson suggests that there is one.
Eliminate.
(E) describing an analogous situation in which McGregor's generalization does not hold
Levinson does not bring up "an analogous situation." Rather, Levinson continues to discuss the same situation and brings up a new idea about that situatoin.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
