I beleive, no specific data regarding the number of expensive or cheap cars is required. We just need to understand that if a lowest weighted element is taken out from the group of elements, the average of the remaing elements of the group will definately increase (it tends to move towards higher side). You may be correct in saying that the Shift (in the average) would not be significant enough, but other options are also not justifying the given situation as well. :smile:
Snow, Montaqes, I was searching for this question.I found this in 1000RCs from scoretop. The answer was D. But not all answers in 1000 series are correct!!!! some of the answers are in direct opposition to those in OGs!!!! so most of them who refer 1000 series for finish with OGs and then go through 1000 series to practice their strategies Most of the time in GMAT(from my past experience) we should be wary about additional data and should not use that to decide unless it is perfectly justified.
Snow, Montaqes, I was searching for this question.I found this in 1000RCs from scoretop. The answer was D. But not all answers in 1000 series are correct!!!! some of the answers are in direct opposition to those in OGs!!!! so most of them who refer 1000 series for finish with OGs and then go through 1000 series to practice their strategies Most of the time in GMAT(from my past experience) we should be wary about additional data and should not use that to decide unless it is perfectly justified.
Shiva,
Can u share 1000CR doc from scoretop with me as well. I m refering to some 1000CR as well, but not sure whether its a correct one. Also, the answer is (C) in the document that I m referring to. I agree with you that we should be wary about additional data and should stick to the scope and premises of the argument. but, in this case we are asked to look for most probable explaination for the given discrepancy..which means author himself is asking us to use additional data to explain her point! Moreover, I can't justify option (D)..it would be great if u can explain option (D) to us
Can u share 1000CR doc from scoretop with me as well. I m refering to some 1000CR as well, but not sure whether its a correct one. Also, the answer is (C) in the document that I m referring to. I agree with you that we should be wary about additional data and should stick to the scope and premises of the argument. but, in this case we are asked to look for most probable explaination for the given discrepancy..which means author himself is asking us to use additional data to explain her point! Moreover, I can't justify option (D)..it would be great if u can explain option (D) to us :smile:
Montaqes, PM me your email id I can share it. I will send you the link As explained earlier only taxes and economic condition are stated in the premise and I guess the answer should be based on the same only B and D state something concerned with them I have given the reason in the last post I am afraid that is best I could come up with 😞
Someone please, throw some light...! I am :confused: with OAs.
1) Since it has become known that several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the bank's depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the bank's financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the company's health. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles? A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies. B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence. C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion. D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.
2) In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited? A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
Someone please, throw some light...! I am :confused: with OAs.
1) Since it has become known that several of a banks top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the banks depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the banks financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the companys health. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles? A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies. B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence. C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion. D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.
2) In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited? A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
Hi,
1) i think thsi question was already discussed in the thread a few pages back. i do not want to explain my take right now. Let people having fresh look give it a try.
2) In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?
My Answer is C.
Rephrased Argument: Plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds as the number of injuries is higher at the time platic sleds are used vis-a-vis wooden sleds.
A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. A few cases of wooden sleds cannot change the fact that plastic sleds are the most popular ones recently(and hence would account for most injuries).
B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. It is NOT clear whether the statement is about past (when wooden sleds were used) or present or in general for all times.Hence it cannot undermine the argument.
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. Plastic sleds much wider scope of use could provide alternate explanation for the higher number of injuries right now and hence is the correct answer. With this alternate explanation the connection between number of injuries and inherent risk of using a palstic sled is broken, effectively undermining the evidence.
D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. It doesn't relate to either the wooden or the plastic sled.
E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured
This hints that plastic sleds can carry only one rider which implies that the number of injuries per accident is less in comparision to Wooden slides. In this light, the fact of more number of injuries (at a time when plastic sleds are used) is more connected to the inherent risk of plastic sleds. thus this fact strenthens rether than wealens the force of evidence.
1) i think thsi question was already discussed in the thread a few pages back. i do not want to explain my take right now. Let people having fresh look give it a try.
2) In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?
My Answer is C.
Rephrased Argument: Plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds as the number of injuries is higher at the time platic sleds are used vis-a-vis wooden sleds.
A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. A few cases of wooden sleds cannot change the fact that plastic sleds are the most popular ones recently(and hence would account for most injuries).
B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. It is NOT clear whether the statement is about past (when wooden sleds were used) or present or in general for all times.Hence it cannot undermine the argument.
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. Plastic sleds much wider scope of use could provide alternate explanation for the higher number of injuries right now and hence is the correct answer. With this alternate explanation the connection between number of injuries and inherent risk of using a palstic sled is broken, effectively undermining the evidence.
D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. It doesn't relate to either the wooden or the plastic sled.
E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured
This hints that plastic sleds can carry only one rider which implies that the number of injuries per accident is less in comparision to Wooden slides. In this light, the fact of more number of injuries (at a time when plastic sleds are used) is more connected to the inherent risk of plastic sleds. thus this fact strenthens rether than wealens the force of evidence.
Someone please, throw some light...! I am :confused: with OAs.
1) Since it has become known that several of a banks top executives have been buying shares in their own bank, the banks depositors, who had been worried by rumors that the bank faced impending financial collapse, have been greatly relieved. They reason that since top executives evidently have faith in the banks financial soundness, those worrisome rumors must be false. They might well be overoptimistic, however since corporate executives have sometimes bought shares in their own company in a calculated attempt to dispel negative rumors about the companys health. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles? A. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states the counterevidence on which the argument relies. B. The first summarizes the evidence used in the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence. C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is evidence that undermines the support for this intermediate conclusion. D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. E. The first is an intermediate conclusion that forms part of the reasoning called into question by the argument; the second states a further conclusion supported by this intermediate conclusion.
2) In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited? A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
2) The tone of the author has to be noted here. He says ----plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out-- since he says concerns are clear it means he believes plastic sleds are more dangerous. In order to weaken this we have to prove plastic sledges or not dangerous or provide an alternate explanation for children getting injured. A. A few is specific so we cannot undermine the author's evidence completely B. What if children are not wearing protection then they may be getting injured because of that and not because they switched from wood to plastic. Gives an alternate explanation C. This states an advantage but it cannot undermine author's view that plastic sledges are dangerous. Even if we assume that plastic sledges are used in dangerous conditions so injuries are because of that we cannot completely undermine author's view that plastic sledges are dangerous anyway D.These are specific instances and as author already states plastics are harder to steer so if anything this supports the view that plastics are dangerous E. Doesn't undermine B seems correct
2) The tone of the author has to be noted here. He says ----plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out-- since he says concerns are clear it means he believes plastic sleds are more dangerous. In order to weaken this we have to prove plastic sledges or not dangerous or provide an alternate explanation for children getting injured. A. A few is specific so we cannot undermine the author's evidence completely B. What if children are not wearing protection then they may be getting injured because of that and not because they switched from wood to plastic. Gives an alternate explanation C. This states an advantage but it cannot undermine author's view that plastic sledges are dangerous. Even if we assume that plastic sledges are used in dangerous conditions so injuries are because of that we cannot completely undermine author's view that plastic sledges are dangerous anyway D.These are specific instances and as author already states plastics are harder to steer so if anything this supports the view that plastics are dangerous E. Doesn't undermine B seems correct
sounds good. However, children not wearing helmets can be true for woodern sleds. But here, (B) seems to be the best if not perfect choice.
2) The tone of the author has to be noted here. He says ----plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out-- since he says concerns are clear it means he believes plastic sleds are more dangerous. In order to weaken this we have to prove plastic sledges or not dangerous or provide an alternate explanation for children getting injured. A. A few is specific so we cannot undermine the author's evidence completely B. What if children are not wearing protection then they may be getting injured because of that and not because they switched from wood to plastic. Gives an alternate explanation C. This states an advantage but it cannot undermine author's view that plastic sledges are dangerous. Even if we assume that plastic sledges are used in dangerous conditions so injuries are because of that we cannot completely undermine author's view that plastic sledges are dangerous anyway D.These are specific instances and as author already states plastics are harder to steer so if anything this supports the view that plastics are dangerous E. Doesn't undermine B seems correct
Q.1...My take is A).....Here "They" refers to the Bank depositors.. one is explaining the evidence and another is saying that bank depositors are overoptimistic.. Please let me know the answer Q.2. C) Here the fact of being more dangerous is defined by number of accidents..not the dangerous conditions... So as plastic ones are used in variety of conditions..So this is not the appropriate comaprison..
Q.1...My take is A).....Here "They" refers to the Bank depositors.. one is explaining the evidence and another is saying that bank depositors are overoptimistic.. Please let me know the answer Q.2. C) Here the fact of being more dangerous is defined by number of accidents..not the dangerous conditions... So as plastic ones are used in variety of conditions..So this is not the appropriate comaprison..
Hi Rajib
1st's answer is (E). Please find the explanation in 2-3 pages back.
for 2nd, I am getting confused between (B) and (C). I am more inclined towards (C) but the OA is (B).
I think if plastic sleds can be used in more conditions so no of accidents will be more...but it doesn't mean they are more dangerous that wooden ones.
1st's answer is (E). Please find the explanation in 2-3 pages back.
for 2nd, I am getting confused between (B) and (C). I am more inclined towards (C) but the OA is (B).
I think if plastic sleds can be used in more conditions so no of accidents will be more...but it doesn't mean they are more dangerous that wooden ones.
Thanks..I got the page.. And I think the answer for 2) is C... I did it 2 days back in OG..
I dint read option C properly. Actually Option C states exactly what I said..
The contribution of Chemicals division was at 60% and the chemicals div has had a bad yr.So the overall results take a hit.So even if Pharma results had not increased , their contribution to the overall company results wud definitely have improved.Now there is nothing to be happy abt here..
To better explain , lets use some numbers..
Say total profit is 100 60 is from the chemicals division. 20 is from the pharma division.
Chemicals-bad yr so results come down to say 20 for that division and there is no difference in the results of any other div..
overall profit will be 60 and pharma's contribution will be 20/60 or 33.33 %. This increase is without any material difference in that divisions result..
Numbers are just an example..
Hope my explanation is right ...
The answer should be option C.. Encouraging is the Term which needs to be considered.. In this context..Chemical's contribution is not encouraging.. But If it is known that the Pharma's contribution is not becoz of high performance..then it directly criticizes author's view..
Hi.. Can someone plz help me answer the question in the attached word document? Thanks a ton!
Hi arch,
answer to this question should be (D)...because unless it is assured that profits of these companies would have increased steadily if had the government not passed the bill, we can not say that it is actually because of the bill that these companies reported less increase in profit.
Hi.. Can someone plz help me answer the question in the attached word document? Thanks a ton!
The statement says prior to enacting law companies were making profit and there concludes the law has adverse effect. So the conclusion cannot be true if that is not the case. i.e if the profits did not climb in the absence of the bill so D is correct. A. The conclusion is based on profits and laws effect on it so this has no influence on the conclusion B.Out of scope C.Out of scope E.Irrelevant
Parasitic wasps lay their eggs directly into the eggs of various host insects in exactly the right numbers for any suitable size of host egg. If they laid too many eggs in a host egg, the developing wasp larvae would compete with each otherto the death for nutrients and space. If too few eggs were laid, portions of the host egg would decay, killing the wasp larvae.
Which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn from the information above?
a) The size of smallest host egg that a wasp could theoretically parasitize can be determined from the wasp's egg laying behaviour. b) Host insects lack any effective defenses against the form of predation practiced by parasite wasps. c) Parasitic wasps learn from experience how many eggs to lay into the eggs of different host species. d) failure to lay enough eggs would lead to the death of the developing wasp larvae more quickly than would laying too many eggs. e) Parasitic wasps use visual clues to calculate the size of a host egg.
Parasitic wasps lay their eggs directly into the eggs of various host insects in exactly the right numbers for any suitable size of host egg. If they laid too many eggs in a host egg, the developing wasp larvae would compete with each otherto the death for nutrients and space. If too few eggs were laid, portions of the host egg would decay, killing the wasp larvae.
Which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn from the information above?
a) The size of smallest host egg that a wasp could theoretically parasitize can be determined from the wasp's egg laying behaviour. b) Host insects lack any effective defenses against the form of predation practiced by parasite wasps. c) Parasitic wasps learn from experience how many eggs to lay into the eggs of different host species. d) failure to lay enough eggs would lead to the death of the developing wasp larvae more quickly than would laying too many eggs. e) Parasitic wasps use visual clues to calculate the size of a host egg.
Is the correct answer ? I'll post the explanation if C is the correct answer.
(B) (D) and (E) can be ruled out as they give information that are not related to the argument.
The argument only provides information about the egg-laying habits of the parasitic wasps. But it doesn't say that these habits have been acquired with experience.
This leads us to Answer (A) which talks about the wasps' "egg laying behaviour".
plz correct me if i'm wrong!
montaqes Says
No, the correct answer is (A).....does anybody have any explaination regarding it
