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.
22 Mar 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
52% (01:34) correct
48%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 106
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The juvenile literacy rate, number of adolescents per 100 who are literate, in Keating has risen forty percent over the previous three years ago. In Nickleby, the juvenile literacy rate has risen only twelve percent over the same time period. This data supports the conclusion that adolescents growing up in Keating are more likely to become literate than are adolescents growing up in Nickleby.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. how the juvenile population density of both Keating and Nickleby has changed over the past three years
B. what the juvenile literacy rates of Keating and Nickleby were three years ago
C. the change in the ratio of literate to illiterate juveniles three years ago and now in Keating and Nickleby
D. a comparison between the rate of juvenile population growth in Keating over the past three years and the corresponding rate in Nickleby
E. a comparison between expenditures on juvenile education made over the past three years in Keating and the same made in Nickleby
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. how the juvenile population density of both Keating and Nickleby has changed over the past three years
B. what the juvenile literacy rates of Keating and Nickleby were three years ago
C. the change in the ratio of literate to illiterate juveniles three years ago and now in Keating and Nickleby
D. a comparison between the rate of juvenile population growth in Keating over the past three years and the corresponding rate in Nickleby
E. a comparison between expenditures on juvenile education made over the past three years in Keating and the same made in Nickleby
22 Mar 2026, 22:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Pre thinking:
Here we are given the rates, so the logic gap is that the rates of Nickleby could have already had a larger rate hence a +12% would be greater than +40% in Keating.
Option B perfectly portrays this prethinking.
Other options:
A --> Irrelevant
C --? Irrelevant
D --> The comparision is what is mentioned in the passage itself.
E --> Irrelevant
Here we are given the rates, so the logic gap is that the rates of Nickleby could have already had a larger rate hence a +12% would be greater than +40% in Keating.
Option B perfectly portrays this prethinking.
Other options:
A --> Irrelevant
C --? Irrelevant
D --> The comparision is what is mentioned in the passage itself.
E --> Irrelevant
ExpertsGlobal5
23 Mar 2026, 03:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
ExpertsGlobal5
JLR is the number of adolescents who are literate per 100 literate population. Compared to three years ago, the JLR for keating has risen by 40% and for Nickleby has risen by 12%.
The data concludes, keating to be more literate than Nickleby.
A. how the juvenile population density of both Keating and Nickleby has changed over the past three years.
The population density is the number of persons living per square metre. So, we are not concerned with the population being clustered or scattered. This is irrelevant. Hence, wrong.
B. what the juvenile literacy rates of Keating and Nickleby were three years ago.
This option clearly defines the base rates of the two regions in comparison. If the base rates are known then, the % increase can attribute to a definite figure. As the rates are per 100, we can use it for calculating the increase. Hence, correct answer.
C. the change in the ratio of literate to illiterate juveniles three years ago and now in Keating and Nickleby.
If we know the literate % , we can take the inverse to arrive at illiterate juveniles. So, it works vice versa. Hence, wrong.
D. a comparison between the rate of juvenile population growth in Keating over the past three years and the corresponding rate in Nickleby.
The year on year rate fluctuations is not needed to arrive at the conclusion. Hence, wrong.
E. a comparison between expenditures on juvenile education made over the past three years in Keating and the same made in Nickleby.
This is an irrelevant and completely out of scope answer. Hence, Wrong.
Option B
