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 Your Progress
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!
Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club
Registration gives you:
Tests
Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.
Applicant Stats
View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more
Books/Downloads
Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Oct 2007, 19:37
11
This post was BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
65% (hard)
Question Stats:
56% (01:06) correct
44% (01:21) wrong based on 1546 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
(A) those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training. (B) even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations. (C) many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations. (D) after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth. (E) even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth.
We have no idea if education or jobs stimulate the economy. Either way, we are trying to find out how else the economy could grow if not for strict environtmental regulations.
E - even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth.
hypothesis: [strict regulations] reduce [growth]. the fact: states with [strict regulations] have the highest [growth].
if cause-effect relation in the fact is true, states with reduced [growth] have to enact [strict regulations], but C says opposite behavior:
C. many states .... reduced economic [growth] are considering weakening ... [regulations]
At first, I also fell in the C trap. After reading carefully, I see that the way C says is exactly way that we use to attack the argument, but the nature in meaning, C do not say that.
I think C will be correct if C says: many states that are experiencing the highest economic growth are those with strictest their environmental regulations.
I bet that C win if C is mentioned above.
A assumes that education and training are killer promoting growth, not environmental regulations.
_________________
In A we have to assume that the investments in education and job training result in economic growth. Judging this logic the correct answer can also sound like:
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in searching alien civilizations _________________
In A we have to assume that the investments in education and job training result in economic growth. Judging this logic the correct answer can also sound like:
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in searching alien civilizations
I agree with you that there is some assumption involved in A, but i think the clue here is words like "strickest" environmental regulation (among all states) ..... and invest the "most" in education and/or searching the aliens.....
so it tells me that these states having highest growth, strickest regulation .... also have some thing which is best among other states ..... could be a reason for growth ......
C on the other hand is speculative ... other states are thinking of weakning the regilations in hope of higher growth ... but may not get success.....
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most [#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Aug 2009, 01:05
6
This post received KUDOS
28
This post was BOOKMARKED
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth
_________________
Re: According to a widely held economic hypothesis [#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Aug 2009, 02:55
1
This post received KUDOS
tejal777 wrote:
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth
I think A is the answer because there must be fact other than environmental regulations that promote growth i.e higher education can lead to produce chips .
Assume producing copper will yield 1$ producing wire will yield $10 producing micro chip from same material will yield $100. Which is more enviromental consuming of course producing copper.
_________________
Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks
Re: According to a widely held economic hypothesis [#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Aug 2009, 08:44
imanonymoususer wrote:
crejoc wrote:
IMO A A. shows alternative reason for economy growth in states with strictest environmetnal regulations.i.e economy growth is not caused by strictest environmetnal regulations
It has not been stated that investing in education and job training will lead to better economic growth. We can't assume that.
This is an alternative reason for economy growth instead of strictest environmental regulations. In blank space questions EXTERNAL INFORMATION is allowed, otherwise , we cannot fill it up. If you look through every answer choice, each has external information that is not stated in the passage.
If you say it is not stated in the option A, it is stated in the passage itself " This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth" option A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training
considering all these in mind try reading option A with the question This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.. it fits well
Re: CR: logically completing the sentence [#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Oct 2011, 01:06
2
This post received KUDOS
3
This post was BOOKMARKED
Fact1- imposing environmental restrictions reduces economic growth Fact-2- states with highest economic growth have strictest env. restrictions so fact-2 undermines fact1 now the last part of argument says "This fact(fact2) does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since fact3"
so fact2 and fact3 taken together should be able to prove that environmental regulations does not promote growth E) says " weak env. regulations => some growth" fact2 says "strict env. regulations => highest growth" both taken together shows that env. regulations and growth are related. so this can be ruled out
A) is the answer as explained by defenestrate it introduces a new element which could be a probable reason for growth in the states with strictest regulations and thus shows env. regulations has nothing to do with growth
Re: CR: logically completing the sentence [#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Oct 2011, 02:42
1
This post received KUDOS
DeeptiM wrote:
there are 4 posts for this question but none explains the reason for elimination option E..
Can somebody help??
To fully complete the sentence, we need to show that the 'strict environmental restrictions' are not a reason for high economic growth.
E says that countries with weak environmental restrictions have also had at least some growth. Now does that explain how A has had high growth? Or can it explain how 'strict environmental restrictions' are not the reason for A's economic growth? Certainly not. One might think that it is sufficient to cast a suspicion on our premise. But that pales in comparison to the choices that we are provided with.
Take A, it clarifies that investment in education and job training are the reason for A's higher growth. That is what we are looking for.
Re: Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Feb 2014, 04:49
5
This post received KUDOS
5
This post was BOOKMARKED
This is an strengthen question because the conclusion "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth" is in the stimulus. After all, the setup of "which of the following, if true" or of "however, since ______" indicate new information can be provided.
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training This answer choice directly address the counterpoint, for the cause of job growth promotes growth more than the environmental regulations.
B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations Opposite answer - This statement actually supports the counterpoint.
C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations Shell game - this leads to a different conclusion - i.e. therefore, not all states consider environment regulations as a way to increase job growth. Besides, this statement is neutral - neither strengthen or weakens the conclusion.
D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth Opposite answer - This supports the counterpoint.
E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth Opposite answer - This supports the counterpoint.
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most [#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Sep 2014, 09:18
1
This post received KUDOS
Just to be sure, the OA is A and this question is part of GMATPrepExam Pack 1 and is an official question.
Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most logically completes the argument below?
According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______.
So as per the passage the strict Regulation -> More growth is observed but we need to say why the direct correlation doesn't exist.
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training - Correct as there is no direct correlation. This is the best answer and not a perfect as we need assume some things
B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations This option says there is a direct correlation between strict regulation and growth.
C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations There is a direct correlation and that is the reason why many states are contemplating weakening their environmental regulations
D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth Direct correlation
E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth Even if we remove the strong environmental regulations, there is some growth. There is also a direct correlation as weak environmental regulation -> No strong growth. _________________
Re: Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most [#permalink]
Show Tags
09 Sep 2014, 23:08
2
This post received KUDOS
My 2 cents. According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. General Fact-1: Strict/High ER --> Low EG [C&E]
This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. Contradicting Fact-2: Strictest ER -- Highest EG [mentions that 2 r present together]
This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______. Conclusion: SER !-> HEG. Why?? We can answer that by identifying an alternate factor that affect EG , during the strict ER period. Just bec 2 events r present doesn't mean that they r related.
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training>> Correct, HEG might be the result of investment in education(HIE). B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations [In a way strengthen the contradicting fact] C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations. [Trying to reverse the relationship. Helps us little in identifying what we r looking for.] D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth [opposite of wht we r looking for] E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth [opposite of wht we r looking for]
Can someone review and confirm if i m correct in my reasoning. Also m i right in my assumption that introducing an indirect relationship between SER and HEG would strengthen the conclusion?
_________________
My 2 cents. According to a widely held economic hypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economic growth. General Fact-1: Strict/High ER --> Low EG [C&E]
This hypothesis is undermined by the fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also have the highest economic growth. Contradicting Fact-2: Strictest ER -- Highest EG [mentions that 2 r present together]
This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since ______. Conclusion: SER !-> HEG. Why?? We can answer that by identifying an alternate factor that affect EG , during the strict ER period. Just bec 2 events r present doesn't mean that they r related.
A. those states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in education and job training>> Correct, HEG might be the result of investment in education(HIE). B. even those states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations [In a way strengthen the contradicting fact] C. many states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering weakening their environmental regulations. [Trying to reverse the relationship. Helps us little in identifying what we r looking for.] D. after introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced increased economic growth [opposite of wht we r looking for] E. even those states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least some growth [opposite of wht we r looking for]
Can someone review and confirm if i m correct in my reasoning. Also m i right in my assumption that introducing an indirect relationship between SER and HEG would strengthen the conclusion?
Dear Student,
Thank you for your post.
You are correct in your overall understanding of the passage. However, I would not call the hypothesis a general fact. The fact that this hypothesis exists is definitely a fact. I hope you understand the difference between the two.
You are quite close to the correct answer in your pre-thinking. What you are trying to say, I hope, is that just because there is a correlation between the two (they co-exist) doesn't mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between them as well. This understanding is correct to logically complete the given argument.
Hypothesis: strict environmental regulations results in reduced economic growth problem: states with strict regulations also have highest growth (no cause effect given - just note that both are present. This is called a correlation - they're present together but not necessarily connected by a cause-effect relationship.) The fact that they're correlated doesn't mean that environmental regs cause economic growth.
So we need some reason to show that just because they're correlated doesn't mean one causes the other. One way to do this is to have some other thing that is likely to result in economic growth.
A) education and job training are likely to result in economic growth. Check. B) this is just repeating the correlation we were already given in the argument. No new info. C) this is out of scope - it doesn't address the idea that something else might be causing the growth instead of environmental regs D) this would tend to reinforce the idea that environmental regs do result in economic growth. That's the opposite of what we want to show. E) this is also out of scope - it doesn't address the idea that something else might be causing the growth instead of environmental regs
_________________
Re: Which of the following, if true, provides evidence that most [#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Aug 2015, 07:49
The argument first states a link between strict environmental regulations and economic growth.
Based on this link, actually a correlation, the argument concludes causation- strict environmental regulations causes economic growth. How can we conclude a causation based on causation?
A is the best answer choice because it implicitly states that the relation between the two- strict environmental regulations causes economic growth- is DEFINITELY NOT DIRECTLY correlative and hence,NOT causative.The two entities may be indirectly related but not directly related.If two entities are directly correlated then they one MAY cause another.
E is a trap. It reinforces the direct Correlation.And direct correlation seldom strengthens causation.
_________________
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali
We’ve given one of our favorite features a boost! You can now manage your profile photo, or avatar , right on WordPress.com. This avatar, powered by a service...
Sometimes it’s the extra touches that make all the difference; on your website, that’s the photos and video that give your content life. You asked for streamlined access...
A lot has been written recently about the big five technology giants (Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook) that dominate the technology sector. There are fears about the...
Post today is short and sweet for my MBA batchmates! We survived Foundations term, and tomorrow's the start of our Term 1! I'm sharing my pre-MBA notes...
56% (01:06) correct
