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 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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Updated on: 08 May 2020, 02:48
Originally posted by SudiptoGmat on 18 Feb 2010, 08:44.
Last edited by Bunuel on 08 May 2020, 02:48, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 08 May 2020, 02:48, 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:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
68% (02:10) correct
32%
(02:20)
wrong
based on 1430
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Thirty years ago, the percentage of the British people who vacationed in foreign countries was very small compared with the large percentage of the British population who travel abroad for vacations now. Foreign travel is, and always has been, expensive from Britain. Therefore, British people must have, on average, more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
The argument requires assuming which one of the following?
(A) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacation abroad.
(B) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.
(C) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.
(D) If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
(E) If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, then they must have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
The argument requires assuming which one of the following?
(A) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacation abroad.
(B) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.
(C) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.
(D) If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
(E) If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, then they must have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
21 Feb 2010, 11:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey All,
I'm wondering where this questions came from, because if the official answer really is E (as you seem to say), I can't agree. It draws the wrong connection.
Conclusion: British people have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
Premises: 30 years ago, small percentage of British vk'd abroad. Way more now. VK'ing abroad is expensive.
Assumption: It has anything to do with money.
(A) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacation abroad.
Problem: We don't need this to make the argument. In fact, it weakens our argument. We want people to travel if they have enough money to do so.
(B) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.
Problem: We don't care about people of other countries.
(C) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.
Problem: Domestic vacations are not part of this argument either.
(D) If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
Answer: Let's try the NOT test (if we take the opposite of the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart) to prove this one. "If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would NOT have done so." Now we have a problem. The passage wants to link the taking of vacations with having enough money to do so, but this now says that when people have enough money to travel, they don't necessarily do so. That destroys the point.
(E) If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, then they must have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
Problem: This is linking money in general to vacation money, but we're not concerned with money in general. If we take the opposite of this ("If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, they do not necessarily spend more on vacations") [paraphrase], the argument is still fine.
Not sure where this question came from, but if the answer IS E, I'm not seeing it.
Hope that helps!
I'm wondering where this questions came from, because if the official answer really is E (as you seem to say), I can't agree. It draws the wrong connection.
Conclusion: British people have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
Premises: 30 years ago, small percentage of British vk'd abroad. Way more now. VK'ing abroad is expensive.
Assumption: It has anything to do with money.
(A) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacation abroad.
Problem: We don't need this to make the argument. In fact, it weakens our argument. We want people to travel if they have enough money to do so.
(B) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.
Problem: We don't care about people of other countries.
(C) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.
Problem: Domestic vacations are not part of this argument either.
(D) If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
Answer: Let's try the NOT test (if we take the opposite of the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart) to prove this one. "If more of the British people 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would NOT have done so." Now we have a problem. The passage wants to link the taking of vacations with having enough money to do so, but this now says that when people have enough money to travel, they don't necessarily do so. That destroys the point.
(E) If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, then they must have more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.
Problem: This is linking money in general to vacation money, but we're not concerned with money in general. If we take the opposite of this ("If British people are now wealthier than they were 30 years ago, they do not necessarily spend more on vacations") [paraphrase], the argument is still fine.
Not sure where this question came from, but if the answer IS E, I'm not seeing it.
Hope that helps!
General Discussion
19 Feb 2010, 09:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think its D.
The author is assuming that Brits from 30years ago did not make foreign travel just cuz they did not have enuff money. That may not be true. Maybe Brits from 30 years ago thot that foreign countries were not as beautiful as Britain, maybe they did not get visas at that time, we don't know
But by making that assumption D he is saying that Brits from 30 years ago always wanted foreign vacation but could not afford it and now that percentage of foreign travel is up that means Brits have more money at their disposal for vacationing.
The author is assuming that Brits from 30years ago did not make foreign travel just cuz they did not have enuff money. That may not be true. Maybe Brits from 30 years ago thot that foreign countries were not as beautiful as Britain, maybe they did not get visas at that time, we don't know
But by making that assumption D he is saying that Brits from 30 years ago always wanted foreign vacation but could not afford it and now that percentage of foreign travel is up that means Brits have more money at their disposal for vacationing.
SudiptoGmat
