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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
Ekland
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Last visit: 30 Apr 2023
Posts: 355
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 342
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: Alberta"19 Fordham '18 Schulich Jan '18 Desautels '19 Haskayne(Calgary) Jindal '19 Owen '19 Olin '19 (I) Queens"18
GPA: 3.93
WE:Account Management (Education)
Schools: Alberta"19 Fordham '18 Schulich Jan '18 Desautels '19 Haskayne(Calgary) Jindal '19 Owen '19 Olin '19 (I) Queens"18
Posts: 355
Kudos:
879
30 Mar 2016, 04:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
I got this question right during a test but during the review which i did immediately, i saw that i spent 3:34 on it, a way-too-slow sign. So I wanted know why i had to spend far much time in it than in other questions i got right. I saw that during the test, I struggled a little with the logic in option B which is the correct answer. cos it wasnt even in the assumption i made in mind before proceeding to the options.
International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X. Because the government sets the country's policy priorities and passes new laws, the underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group, such as pensions, age-related welfare, and employment discrimination; only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.
Which of the following best describes an assumption implicit to the international policy adviser's argument?
(A) A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.
(B) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(C) A significant increase in funding toward educating the government about issues affecting people over age 65 would result in more serious consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(D) A significant increase in funding for adult education targeted to people over age 65 would result in an increase in the number of such people in Country X's government.
(E) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would have to precede any increase in the number of high-ranking government officials who are over the age of 65.
But I guessed the recognition of a logic pattern will be invaluable to me in acing the GMAT. What i want to know is: Is this a valid n regular logic pattern for GMAT or was that a one off?
So essentially, if X causes Y to occur then removing X will necessarily cause Y to at least occur less? Because underepresentation of the 65+ in the govt caused a lack of consideration for issues concerning the 65+, then increasing their representation MUST cause an increase in consideration for their issues.
Can I safely copy the logic pattern for assesment of similar questions during test and even in my AWA?
e.g.
That since A makes B happen then A's absence MUST result in B not happening or happening less.
If the earth is hot because of ozone depletion, then ozone filling MUST make earth colder.
I found my assimilation of this logic very shaky because even during the test I found a logical possibilty of option B not happening even though the premise that "underepresentation leads to lack of consideration" would still not be questioned (e.g in the case of volatility etc U know better).
Succint and direct responses will be appreciated.
International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X. Because the government sets the country's policy priorities and passes new laws, the underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group, such as pensions, age-related welfare, and employment discrimination; only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.
Which of the following best describes an assumption implicit to the international policy adviser's argument?
(A) A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.
(B) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(C) A significant increase in funding toward educating the government about issues affecting people over age 65 would result in more serious consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(D) A significant increase in funding for adult education targeted to people over age 65 would result in an increase in the number of such people in Country X's government.
(E) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would have to precede any increase in the number of high-ranking government officials who are over the age of 65.
But I guessed the recognition of a logic pattern will be invaluable to me in acing the GMAT. What i want to know is: Is this a valid n regular logic pattern for GMAT or was that a one off?
So essentially, if X causes Y to occur then removing X will necessarily cause Y to at least occur less? Because underepresentation of the 65+ in the govt caused a lack of consideration for issues concerning the 65+, then increasing their representation MUST cause an increase in consideration for their issues.
Can I safely copy the logic pattern for assesment of similar questions during test and even in my AWA?
e.g.
That since A makes B happen then A's absence MUST result in B not happening or happening less.
If the earth is hot because of ozone depletion, then ozone filling MUST make earth colder.
I found my assimilation of this logic very shaky because even during the test I found a logical possibilty of option B not happening even though the premise that "underepresentation leads to lack of consideration" would still not be questioned (e.g in the case of volatility etc U know better).
Succint and direct responses will be appreciated.
30 Mar 2016, 06:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Nez
Hi Nez,
firstly about the Q..
The Q is not following any logic pattern itself..
it says misrepresentation of a particular group has led to lack of consideration for that groups welfare. The conclusion says that the inclusion of this group is the only sloution..
So we are not looking for any logic pattern here...
We are looking for the GAP/assumption about HOW the inclusion will help ...
the conclusion could as well say that ONLY a hunger strike by this group can solve this PROBLEM.
GAP/assumption here -- the hunger strike will be able to persuade the government to change heir attitude and response towards this group..
However if you talk of a logic pattern of something which you have said..
Quote:
It depends on the wordings..
1) If it says that Only A can make this happen, then yes A's absence MUST result in B not happening or happening less
20 But if A makes B happen and A is absent , it is very well possible that C or D or E can also make B happen
Hope it helps and IT was "Succint and direct"
30 Mar 2016, 06:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
You are looking at the wrong pattern, but the pattern of this question will be repeated on the GMAT.
The pattern is that an argument will state something, for example, as you said, "The reason for problem X is lack of Y."
Then question will ask what assumption the argument is based on.
The correct answer will somehow CONNECT X to lack of Y.
In this case the connection is made via the assumption, "Sufficient Y would solve problem X." In other words, if you are saying that the reason for X is lack of Y, then you must be assuming that sufficient Y would solve X.
Having said that, if you see stated as fact in an argument "The reason for problem X is lack of Y." logic dictates that holding other things equal, sufficient Y would solve X, but if other things are not held equal, sufficient Y may not solve X.
There are two takeaways here.
One is that prethinking answers can slow you down and/or obscure the right answer or, worse, lead you to the wrong answer. I personally place little value on the whole prethinking thing, but in any case prethinking may be a good way to focus on and understand an argument more than it is a good way to find answer choices. The right answer choice to most CR questions could be pretty much ANYTHING.
The second takeaway is that for doing CR questions there is no substitute for seeing clearly the logic of what is going on in the prompts, questions and answer choices of each unique question. In other words, just as you need to be careful about using prethought answers, you need to be careful about seeking to apply the pattern of one question to another. Yes there are certain patterns that show up repeatedly in answer choices, but once you get beyond certain simple patterns, the nuances of each situation could differ. So be careful to fully understand the logic of what is going on.
The pattern is that an argument will state something, for example, as you said, "The reason for problem X is lack of Y."
Then question will ask what assumption the argument is based on.
The correct answer will somehow CONNECT X to lack of Y.
In this case the connection is made via the assumption, "Sufficient Y would solve problem X." In other words, if you are saying that the reason for X is lack of Y, then you must be assuming that sufficient Y would solve X.
Having said that, if you see stated as fact in an argument "The reason for problem X is lack of Y." logic dictates that holding other things equal, sufficient Y would solve X, but if other things are not held equal, sufficient Y may not solve X.
There are two takeaways here.
One is that prethinking answers can slow you down and/or obscure the right answer or, worse, lead you to the wrong answer. I personally place little value on the whole prethinking thing, but in any case prethinking may be a good way to focus on and understand an argument more than it is a good way to find answer choices. The right answer choice to most CR questions could be pretty much ANYTHING.
The second takeaway is that for doing CR questions there is no substitute for seeing clearly the logic of what is going on in the prompts, questions and answer choices of each unique question. In other words, just as you need to be careful about using prethought answers, you need to be careful about seeking to apply the pattern of one question to another. Yes there are certain patterns that show up repeatedly in answer choices, but once you get beyond certain simple patterns, the nuances of each situation could differ. So be careful to fully understand the logic of what is going on.
