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 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0401:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
This Labor Day, turn your hard work into real score gains. From 615→715 in 15 days to 705 in 30 days, our students prove what's possible with personalized, expert guidance. Save up to 25% on 1-on-1 tutoring.
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 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 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 1008:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
31 May 2026, 05:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Strengthens: Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens: By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (02:18) correct
55%
(02:29)
wrong
based on 656
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A philosophy professor randomly assigned students to either of the two different sides of a debate in an ethics class, regardless of their stance on the issue. The students then researched and prepared arguments for a week. The students had been almost evenly divided on the issue when the assignments were made, according to an anonymous survey, but almost all of the students reported strong agreement with their assigned position in another, post debate anonymous survey. The professor concluded that the research and preparation for the debate had a polarizing effect, causing many students to change their original positions.
In the columns, select the statement that, if true, would most strengthen the professor’s conclusion and the statement that, if true, would most weaken the conclusion. Make only two selections, one in each column.
In the columns, select the statement that, if true, would most strengthen the professor’s conclusion and the statement that, if true, would most weaken the conclusion. Make only two selections, one in each column.
| Strengthens | Weakens | |
| Most students learned a great deal about both sides of their debate topic during their week of preparation. | ||
| Most of the students consulted research materials that were outdated and based on incomplete data. | ||
| Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic. | ||
| By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with. | ||
| Many students had not reported their original positions to their debate partners at the outset of the project. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Strengthens: Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens: By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
If this question felt shaky,
try an adaptive mini quiz of similar problems in
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →. Free plan gives 5 questions per day.
31 May 2026, 05:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer Explanation (Official):
Evaluate
The professor’s conclusion was that researching and preparing for the debate caused many students to change their original positions on the issue, with a polarizing effect: that is, it made the students develop more intense, polarized opinions than they had at first. We’re told that after the debate, almost all the students reported strong agreement with their assigned debate positions. Thus, evidence that none of the students had strong feelings on the issue prior to the assignment would strengthen the professor’s conclusion that the assignment both changed and polarized the students’ positions.
On the other hand, evidence that almost all the students already agreed with the position they supported during the debate would weaken the professor’s conclusion, because this evidence would suggest that the students’ opinions were similar before and after the assignment, and thus that the assignment must not have changed their opinions much.
Strengthens:
The correct answer is Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens:
The correct answer is By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
Evaluate
The professor’s conclusion was that researching and preparing for the debate caused many students to change their original positions on the issue, with a polarizing effect: that is, it made the students develop more intense, polarized opinions than they had at first. We’re told that after the debate, almost all the students reported strong agreement with their assigned debate positions. Thus, evidence that none of the students had strong feelings on the issue prior to the assignment would strengthen the professor’s conclusion that the assignment both changed and polarized the students’ positions.
On the other hand, evidence that almost all the students already agreed with the position they supported during the debate would weaken the professor’s conclusion, because this evidence would suggest that the students’ opinions were similar before and after the assignment, and thus that the assignment must not have changed their opinions much.
Strengthens:
The correct answer is Prior to the assignment, none of the students had strong feelings about either side of the debate topic.
Weakens:
The correct answer is By chance, almost all of the students were assigned to the side of the debate that they already agreed with.
31 May 2026, 06:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is a classic Two-Part Analysis question testing your ability to evaluate an argument, and the trap is subtle enough that I want to walk through the reasoning carefully.
The professor's conclusion: the research and preparation process had a "polarizing effect," meaning it caused students to develop stronger, more extreme views than they started with.
For the strengthen column: you want something that rules out alternative explanations for why almost all students ended up agreeing with their assigned position.
For the weaken column: you want something that suggests the change in views happened for a different reason, or that there wasn't really a change at all.
Going through the options:
Option 1 (learned a great deal about both sides): This is actually a trap. Knowing more about both sides doesn't explain why students would shift toward their assigned position specifically. Neutral on the argument.
Option 2 (consulted outdated research): Weakens the quality of the debate but doesn't address whether the professor's conclusion about polarization is right or wrong.
Option 3 (prior to assignment, none had strong feelings): This one directly removes the biggest alternative explanation, which is that students were already polarized before the debate started. If no one had strong feelings initially, then almost all reporting strong agreement afterward is genuinely attributable to the preparation process. This strengthens the conclusion.
Option 4 (by chance, almost all assigned to the side they already agreed with): This is the weaken answer. If students were assigned to a position they already held, then their "strong agreement" in the post-debate survey isn't evidence of polarization at all. They never changed. The professor's inference collapses.
Option 5 (many hadn't told partners their positions): Introduces ambiguity but doesn't clearly strengthen or weaken.
Answer: Strengthens = Option 3, Weakens = Option 4.
The move that trips people on TPA strengthen/weaken questions is ignoring alternative explanations. The professor assumed the preparation caused the shift. Your job is to find what seals that assumption (option 3) and what blows it open (option 4).
The professor's conclusion: the research and preparation process had a "polarizing effect," meaning it caused students to develop stronger, more extreme views than they started with.
For the strengthen column: you want something that rules out alternative explanations for why almost all students ended up agreeing with their assigned position.
For the weaken column: you want something that suggests the change in views happened for a different reason, or that there wasn't really a change at all.
Going through the options:
Option 1 (learned a great deal about both sides): This is actually a trap. Knowing more about both sides doesn't explain why students would shift toward their assigned position specifically. Neutral on the argument.
Option 2 (consulted outdated research): Weakens the quality of the debate but doesn't address whether the professor's conclusion about polarization is right or wrong.
Option 3 (prior to assignment, none had strong feelings): This one directly removes the biggest alternative explanation, which is that students were already polarized before the debate started. If no one had strong feelings initially, then almost all reporting strong agreement afterward is genuinely attributable to the preparation process. This strengthens the conclusion.
Option 4 (by chance, almost all assigned to the side they already agreed with): This is the weaken answer. If students were assigned to a position they already held, then their "strong agreement" in the post-debate survey isn't evidence of polarization at all. They never changed. The professor's inference collapses.
Option 5 (many hadn't told partners their positions): Introduces ambiguity but doesn't clearly strengthen or weaken.
Answer: Strengthens = Option 3, Weakens = Option 4.
The move that trips people on TPA strengthen/weaken questions is ignoring alternative explanations. The professor assumed the preparation caused the shift. Your job is to find what seals that assumption (option 3) and what blows it open (option 4).
