GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Sep 2019, 00:42

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2012
Posts: 105
When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Apr 2019, 04:58
7
1
11
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

82% (01:33) correct 18% (02:05) wrong based on 944 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

The argument above assumes that

(A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years

(B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms

(C) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

(D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations

(E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

On the basis of an observed correlation between arms testing and people’s tendency to save money, the argument concludes that there is a casual connection between a perception of threat and the tendency not to save. That connection cannot be made unless C, linking the perception of threat to the amount of testing being done, is assumed to be true. Therefore, C is the best answer.

The conclusion does not depend on there having been an increase in the perceived thread over time or on how many people supported the development of nuclear arms. Hence, neither A nor B is assumed. Furthermore, the argument does not deal with those who supported arms limitations or with the availability of consumer goods. Thus, D and E are not assumed.

Project CR Butler:Day 46:Critical Reasoning (CR1)

_________________
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post

Originally posted by kingb on 21 Oct 2012, 15:25.
Last edited by Bunuel on 01 Apr 2019, 04:58, edited 4 times in total.
Updated
VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1126
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 08:00
2
1
buddhendra wrote:

The link between the threat of nuclear catastrophe and the arms' testing is established only by this option. Can someone explain what's a LEN test?

Actually it means Least Extreme Negation.

eg: Everyone is good.

Extreme negation of this would be : No one is good. (Meaning there are no good people at all)

Least extreme negation would be : Not everyone is good. (Meaning there are some people who are not good)

When testing an assumption we only want to test with the least extreme negation and check if it kills the conclusion. Extreme negation might even make wrong answer choices kill the conclusion.

Kudos Please... If you liked my post.
_________________
Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types
VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1126
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2012, 00:05
1
1
Argument talks about an increase in nuclear arms testing and jumps to perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe. Only C fills this logical gap. Moreover C also passes the LEN test.
_________________
Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1023
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 12:09
1
The argument talks about nuclear testing but the conclusion talks about people's perception of nuclear threat. In order for the conclusion to hold, we must assume a relation between these two. Hence the answer has to be C.
Hope that helps.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 272
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 23:58
Conclusion:
The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, (marker) decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
You are looking for something relating perceived threat and the testing. Only choice is answer C.

A. increase or decrease is OOS.
B. supporting the testing is OOS.
C. Correct.
D. people’s view of the testing is OOS.
E. consumer goods are irrelevant.
Intern
Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Posts: 1
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.3
WE: Education (Consulting)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:39

The link between the threat of nuclear catastrophe and the arms' testing is established only by this option. Can someone explain what's a LEN test?
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 280
Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:53
buddhendra wrote:

The link between the threat of nuclear catastrophe and the arms' testing is established only by this option. Can someone explain what's a LEN test?

I think it's a alternate terminology for Logical Negation Test. In assumption question, the best way to check the close answer is to negate the statement logically and check whether the argument still exists or dies.

Here it will be C. people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe do not depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

So if this negated statement is true then the argument dies. Hence its the correct assumption.
_________________
Regards
SD
-----------------------------
Press Kudos if you like my post.
Debrief 610-540-580-710(Long Journey): http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-600-540-580-710-finally-achieved-in-4th-attempt-142456.html
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 518
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 10:26
Easy choice, use LEN technique to attack choice C and we will found out the correct one.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 351
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: Haas EWMBA '17
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 13:16
Conclusion: The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases tendency of saving and increases spending.

1) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years
-- Not an assumption and conclusion is not based upon this fact.
2) most people supported the development of nuclear arms
-- Not an assumption and conclusion is not based upon this fact.
3) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done
-- Thsi bridges the gap between people's perception of neuclear threat (and hence their spending) and amount of nuclear testing.
4) the people who saved the most money when nuclear-arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations
-- Author dont have to assume this to arrive at his conclusion.
5) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases
-- Not an assumption and conclusion is not based upon this fact.

_________________
Thanks,
Prashant Ponde

Tough 700+ Level RCs: Passage1 | Passage2 | Passage3 | Passage4 | Passage5 | Passage6 | Passage7
VOTE GMAT Practice Tests: Vote Here
PowerScore CR Bible - Official Guide 13 Questions Set Mapped: Click here
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 60
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: ISB '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
WE: General Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 12:59
The correct answer is "C". To test it, if you negate this assumption the entire argument falls apart.
_________________
Kudos are motivating!
Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 57
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
GPA: 2.75
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2016, 11:06
This argument kind of fits into list of arguments having "Language shift"
Argument starts with Nuclear testing and concludes about Nuclear catastrophe. So, there has to be a link between the two to get to the final conclusion.

Option C does that exactly.
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Posts: 233
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 May 2018, 02:38
No limitation/ increasing test leads to spend
Con: Threat leads to spend money/not save money

Assumption: no limitation or increasing test is somehow related to threat. Only C fulfills the demand.
_________________
We Shall Overcome... One day...
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1689
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2018, 05:07
kingb wrote:
When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

The argument above assumes that

A. the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years

B. most people supported the development of nuclear arms

C. people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

D. the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations

E. there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

Link : Increase in Nuclear arms testing -----> Decrease in willingness to save money

A. Irrelevant

B. Irrelevant

C. Correct : More testing more threat

D. Irrelevant

E. Irrelevant

_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 199
When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2019, 10:35
kingb wrote:
When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

The argument above assumes that

(A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years

(B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms

(C) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

(D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations

(E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

On the basis of an observed correlation between arms testing and people’s tendency to save money, the argument concludes that there is a casual connection between a perception of threat and the tendency not to save. That connection cannot be made unless C, linking the perception of threat to the amount of testing being done, is assumed to be true. Therefore, C is the best answer.

The conclusion does not depend on there having been an increase in the perceived thread over time or on how many people supported the development of nuclear arms. Hence, neither A nor B is assumed. Furthermore, the argument does not deal with those who supported arms limitations or with the availability of consumer goods. Thus, D and E are not assumed.

Project CR Butler:Day 46:Critical Reasoning (CR1)

Premise: When arms testing increases , people save less.

Conclusion: Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases people's willingness to save.
So Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe also makes people save less.
That means "Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" also leads to the same result.
Why ?
Because "Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" depends on the "arms testing".

"Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" means "Arms testing".
They are proportional to each other.
So the assumption is :-
people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe
depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done.

Option C is the correct answer.

Please give me KUDO s if you liked my explanation.

VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1049
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2019, 01:16
The argument is that the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
This is based on evidence that when nuclear testing is limited, people spend more, but when nuclear testing increases, people spend less.

A is incorrect - we don't need to know a trend to make this argument, we can simply deduce the argument based on a one-year observation.
B is incorrect - it is not conducive to the argument at all
C is correct - try inserting this.
People's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear arms testing being done, therefore the perceived nuclear catastrophe decreases the willingness of people to postpone spending when the perceived amount of testing increases and decrease consumption when the perceived amount of testing decreases.

D is incorrect as it doesn't need to be assumed to make the argument.
E is incorrect as the argument is concerned with purchasing of goods (demand) not the supply of goods.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41
Re: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended   [#permalink] 07 Aug 2019, 01:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by