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.
15 Jan 2025, 12:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
85% (01:48) correct
15%
(02:03)
wrong
based on 112
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Cellular telephone towers are critical for their ability to a low wireless transmission of signals between cell phone users. Because many of the towers currently in use were built over a decade ago and rely on outdated circuitry, workers with specialized training are needed to repair them. Without repairs, a number of these older cell phone towers would soon fail. Thus, workers with the training required to repair older towers must continue to be utilized.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Most people rely on cellular phones for email correspondence in addition to voice communication.
(B) Programs that specialize in training technicians to repair older circuitry are extremely expensive.
(C) Repairs attempted by unqualified technicians often result in further damage that requires subsequent and more extensive repairs.
(D) Manufacturers of cellular tower circuitry all claim that the circuitry will function reliably for at least five years.
(E) The high wages and scarcity of qualified repair technicians make repairing old cell phone towers more costly and time consuming than simply constructing new towers.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Most people rely on cellular phones for email correspondence in addition to voice communication.
(B) Programs that specialize in training technicians to repair older circuitry are extremely expensive.
(C) Repairs attempted by unqualified technicians often result in further damage that requires subsequent and more extensive repairs.
(D) Manufacturers of cellular tower circuitry all claim that the circuitry will function reliably for at least five years.
(E) The high wages and scarcity of qualified repair technicians make repairing old cell phone towers more costly and time consuming than simply constructing new towers.
15 Jan 2025, 22:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Give me a reason , why d answer is wrong
18 Jan 2025, 23:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
Keshavsahu0001
This is a common type of argument: the author is looking at what's needed for one path without addressing other possible paths. Even if we accept that these towers can only be repaired by specialized workers, why can't we update or replace the towers so that such expertise is no longer needed? A proper weakener should raise a possibility of this sort, or show some other reason that relying on these workers is not necessary.
E does exactly this, telling us that it would be cheaper to just build new towers. If that's the case, then it doesn't seem that we need the specialized workers after all.
A) This is a typical distractor. It focuses on our varied needs for cell phones without addressing which route we need to go to keep them running. It's irrelevant.
B) This tells us that training the specialized workers is expensive. That's definitely a drawback to using them. But the author is saying that using these workers is NECESSARY, not that it's affordable. Imagine if someone said "You need to take the GMAT to get into business school" and I tried to weaken that by saying that the GMAT is expensive. That wouldn't tell us anything about the NEED to take the test, even it cost a million dollars!
C) This is a premise booster. It provides support for a premise we've already been given--that specialized workers are needed. And if we didn't know this? Then great, we'd have a strengthener, not a weakener.
D) First, we're not too interested in what manufacturers *claim*--we just want to know what's true. We already have a premise stating that without repairs, these towers would soon fail, and we have to accept the premises. So this is just saying that the manufacturers are more optimistic than may be warranted. Besides, even if the circuits are good for 5 years, if we still need specialized repair personnel after that, then the conclusion still holds, so this answer doesn't really have any effect. Imagine reading a scientific report about the harmful effect of microplastics in our drinking water, and then reading that plastic manufacturers think the situation is fine for now. Their reassurance would have no way of overriding the facts in the report.
This is a common type of argument: the author is looking at what's needed for one path without addressing other possible paths. Even if we accept that these towers can only be repaired by specialized workers, why can't we update or replace the towers so that such expertise is no longer needed? A proper weakener should raise a possibility of this sort, or show some other reason that relying on these workers is not necessary.
E does exactly this, telling us that it would be cheaper to just build new towers. If that's the case, then it doesn't seem that we need the specialized workers after all.
A) This is a typical distractor. It focuses on our varied needs for cell phones without addressing which route we need to go to keep them running. It's irrelevant.
B) This tells us that training the specialized workers is expensive. That's definitely a drawback to using them. But the author is saying that using these workers is NECESSARY, not that it's affordable. Imagine if someone said "You need to take the GMAT to get into business school" and I tried to weaken that by saying that the GMAT is expensive. That wouldn't tell us anything about the NEED to take the test, even it cost a million dollars!
C) This is a premise booster. It provides support for a premise we've already been given--that specialized workers are needed. And if we didn't know this? Then great, we'd have a strengthener, not a weakener.
D) First, we're not too interested in what manufacturers *claim*--we just want to know what's true. We already have a premise stating that without repairs, these towers would soon fail, and we have to accept the premises. So this is just saying that the manufacturers are more optimistic than may be warranted. Besides, even if the circuits are good for 5 years, if we still need specialized repair personnel after that, then the conclusion still holds, so this answer doesn't really have any effect. Imagine reading a scientific report about the harmful effect of microplastics in our drinking water, and then reading that plastic manufacturers think the situation is fine for now. Their reassurance would have no way of overriding the facts in the report.
