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.
24 Aug 2026, 06:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
yasserp
I’d say (D) is actually relevant because the conclusion is historical: Woodco claims the high rate was never caused by pollution from its plant.
If Woodco reduced emissions and ailments initially fell, that suggests Woodco may indeed have been contributing to the problem. A new competing plywood plant could then have introduced a new source of pollution, causing ailments to rise again.
So the competitor does not have to be “Woodco’s concern.” It simply provides an alternative explanation for why the ailment rate rose again, which undermines Woodco’s claim that its own pollution was never a cause.
02 Sep 2026, 09:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
I selected option E because I was thinking that previously there were fewer hospitals; hence, only a few of the patients had reported, and now there are more hospitals, so now more patients are able to take admission in hospital.
But I think i am wrong because the high no of hospitals in L is in the latest years, and back then, when the Study was published and the government imposed restrictions, and even after an initial dip the rate of respiratory ailments was still growing, that happened 10 years ago, during the same timeline
if the option was, something like, After the initial dip, when rate of respiratory ailments rose, at that time there were new hospitals that started which was not there 10 yrs ago
But I think i am wrong because the high no of hospitals in L is in the latest years, and back then, when the Study was published and the government imposed restrictions, and even after an initial dip the rate of respiratory ailments was still growing, that happened 10 years ago, during the same timeline
if the option was, something like, After the initial dip, when rate of respiratory ailments rose, at that time there were new hospitals that started which was not there 10 yrs ago
guddo
02 Sep 2026, 09:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Ayeka
I think your timing point is valid, but there is an additional problem with (E). We are told only that there are more treatment facilities today than eleven years ago. We do not know when those facilities opened, and we are not told that more facilities caused more respiratory ailments to be diagnosed or reported.
So even if more facilities existed during the later rise, we would still need evidence that the increase in facilities explains the increase in the recorded ailment rate.
(D) gives us that missing causal explanation much more directly. A new plywood plant opened after Woodco reduced its emissions, so a new source of similar pollution could explain why ailments initially fell and then rose again.
