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.
Sep 0907:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway- Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0812:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Sep 1001:00 AM EDT
-02:00 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.
Sep 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
01 Dec 2020, 09:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Dear Karishma,
First of all thank you for providing this opportunity for support!!!
About: a-recent-report-determined-that-although-only-3-percent-of-drivers-on-186145.html
I would like to share with you two ways of analysing the question and the OA. Can you give me feedback if my logic is right?
Lastly, I have two additional questions.
I. Conditional reasoning/form of argument
Premises:
If driver equipped with radar, then part of 3% of all drivers
If driver equipped with radar, then 33% of all ticketed for speeding
Conclusion:
If driver equipped with radar, then more likely to speed regularly
Flaw: Missing link
We have:
x--> y
x--> Z
x--> k
There is a missing link between particularly z & k. This is what the OA establishes.
II. Using the concept of weighted average
Two subgroups: ticketed (a) and Not ticketed (b)
We know: those with a radar have a higher share (33%) in a than in b (must be<3%). So if those with radar have a specific characteristic more than those without radar, then this characteristic must also have a higher share in a than in b. This is what the OA establishes.
III. Additional question
Is it possible to infer from the given whether (those ticketed & have a radar) > 1/2 (all with radar) ?
IV. Additional question
What strategy do you generally recommend for analyzing the argument during the test. It is heIping my understanding now, but am slightly worried that it will take me too much time to write down every argument in its conditional form. And I also worry that I start abstracting too much and loose the ability to employ "real world thinking". Happy to hear your advice.
Many thanks!
First of all thank you for providing this opportunity for support!!!
About: a-recent-report-determined-that-although-only-3-percent-of-drivers-on-186145.html
I would like to share with you two ways of analysing the question and the OA. Can you give me feedback if my logic is right?
Lastly, I have two additional questions.
I. Conditional reasoning/form of argument
Premises:
If driver equipped with radar, then part of 3% of all drivers
If driver equipped with radar, then 33% of all ticketed for speeding
Conclusion:
If driver equipped with radar, then more likely to speed regularly
Flaw: Missing link
We have:
x--> y
x--> Z
x--> k
There is a missing link between particularly z & k. This is what the OA establishes.
II. Using the concept of weighted average
Two subgroups: ticketed (a) and Not ticketed (b)
We know: those with a radar have a higher share (33%) in a than in b (must be<3%). So if those with radar have a specific characteristic more than those without radar, then this characteristic must also have a higher share in a than in b. This is what the OA establishes.
III. Additional question
Is it possible to infer from the given whether (those ticketed & have a radar) > 1/2 (all with radar) ?
IV. Additional question
What strategy do you generally recommend for analyzing the argument during the test. It is heIping my understanding now, but am slightly worried that it will take me too much time to write down every argument in its conditional form. And I also worry that I start abstracting too much and loose the ability to employ "real world thinking". Happy to hear your advice.
Many thanks!
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
