. Reading skills among high school students in Gotham have been steadily declining, which can only be the result of overcrowding in the schools. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument expressed above? (A) The high school system in Gotham succeeds in giving students a good education at considerably less cost than do most systems. (B) Several cities have found that overcrowding in the schools is not always associated with lower reading scores. (C) Gotham schools have a greater teacher-to-student ratio than most other school systems. (D) Students' reading skills have not declined in other cities where the high schools are just as crowded as those of Gotham. (E) Schools are not overcrowded in many cities where high school reading scores have declined more than they have in Gotham.
OA is E - Source is KAPLAN 800 premier..The Catch is word "ONLY"... Counter the argument-> "Overcrowding is the only reason that causes the reading skills to decline, no other reason"... Now look at E...E says, Otherscholls are overcrowded...still reading skills are declining
5. According to some sports historians, professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game. But when the increase in strength and endurance of modem players is discounted, it becomes readily apparent that the playing styles of the current crop of professional tennis players are no different from the styles of players from previous generations. Clearly, there is a universally efficient tennis style to which all professional tennis players conform. The argument above is most weakened by which of the following statements? (A) The differences in physical attributes among tennis players are even more pronounced than the sports historians believe. (B) Few current professional tennis players are familiar with the professional tennis players of fifty years ago. (C) The increased strength of current tennis players contributes more to the development of individual playing styles than does increased endurance. (D) All of the early coaches of today's professional tennis players were professional tennis players themselves earlier in their lives. (E) Weight training and greater attention to diet are the primary factors in the increased strength and stamina of the current generation of professional tennis players. ...Good one...
OA is D) -> Look at the line: "professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game"
Now next line says that...leave the phyisical attribute...So we are left with Influence of coaches.... Moreover, Author states the fact that tennis styles haven't changed over the years to argue that there's simply one best way to play tennis; in contrast to the historians' theory of "unique," the author proposes the theory of "universality."
Now coaches themselves were the professional player...hence the guys learning from them will develop the same style and Perhaps if the current crop of tennis stars don't go on to teach the next generation, whole new styles will develop. So If (D) is true, the author's claim of "universality" is weakened Moreover, Author states the fact that tennis styles haven't changed over the years to argue that there's simply one best way to play tennis; in contrast to the historians' theory of "unique," the author proposes the theory of "universality."
Try following: An economic or political crisis in a poor country can lead to a lack of faith in the country's leaders, which is often followed by violent behavior, dissent, and even revolt among specific segments of the population. In many cases, propaganda is immediately issued from media outlets that quells such reactions by downplaying the extent of the recent crisis, thereby helping to restore belief in the efficacy of the government. However, the habitual violence exhibited by certain groups of disaffected youths in such countries generally has nothing to do with a lack of faith in their leaders, but rather is the consequence of an endemic boredom and lack of any vision of a positive future for themselves.
Which of the following statements follows most logically from the statements in the passage above?
(A) It is easier to quell periodic revolts in poor countries than it is to solve the habitual problem of youth violence. (B) In all poor countries, propaganda alone cannot entirely diffuse dissent stemming from an economic or political crisis. (C) Economic and political crises do not lead to any instances of youth violence in poor countries. (D) The effect that propaganda has in putting down revolts in poor countries is primarily related to its ability to alter people's fundamental beliefs. E)To the extent that propaganda may help to decrease youth violence in a poor country, it is probably not the result of restoring the youths' faith in their country's leadership.
This is among the best of the lot.... I marked C) for this, which obaviously was wrong...hence posted this for explaination...the only reason, I may not buy-in the C would be that it's too extreme...and in Infrence/Conclusion question, catch is to not to be "Extreme"...
OA is E - Source is KAPLAN 800 premier..The Catch is word "ONLY"... Counter the argument-> "Overcrowding is the only reason that causes the reading skills to decline, no other reason"... Now look at E...E says, Otherscholls are overcrowded...still reading skills are declining
--Amit
OA is D) -> Look at the line: "professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game" Now next line says that...leave the phyisical attribute...So we are left with Influence of coaches.... Moreover, Author states the fact that tennis styles haven't changed over the years to argue that there's simply one best way to play tennis; in contrast to the historians' theory of "unique," the author proposes the theory of "universality." Now coaches themselves were the professional player...hence the guys learning from them will develop the same style and Perhaps if the current crop of tennis stars don't go on to teach the next generation, whole new styles will develop. So If (D) is true, the author's claim of "universality" is weakened Moreover, Author states the fact that tennis styles haven't changed over the years to argue that there's simply one best way to play tennis; in contrast to the historians' theory of "unique," the author proposes the theory of "universality."
This is among the best of the lot.... I marked C) for this, which obaviously was wrong...hence posted this for explaination...the only reason, I may not buy-in the C would be that it's too extreme...and in Infrence/Conclusion question, catch is to not to be "Extreme"...
This is among the best of the lot.... I marked C) for this, which obaviously was wrong...hence posted this for explaination...the only reason, I may not buy-in the C would be that it's too extreme...and in Infrence/Conclusion question, catch is to not to be "Extreme"...
OA is E), but don't know how?
I would have chosen E. C - extreme (generally is mentioned in the passage) D - no sign of fundamentalist extremism A - not mentioned B - propaganda alone is not responsilbe .. not mentioned .. but it is also not mentioned that there is something apart from propoganda also. E - seems to be the best, its says propoganda doesn't restore faith in leaders - complements what is written in the passage ( problems are not due to lack of faith, its something else)
OA is E - Source is KAPLAN 800 premier..The Catch is word "ONLY"... Counter the argument-> "Overcrowding is the only reason that causes the reading skills to decline, no other reason"... Now look at E...E says, Otherscholls are overcrowded...still reading skills are declining
--Amit
I read another nice explanation to the OA in another forum..
********************************************************* D) we're not interested in schools where the reading skills have not declined. Rather, we are interested in instances where reading skills have declined and find if overcrowding is the direct and only cause. E) eureka. We have an instance in which reading skills have declined but yet, there is no overcrowding. This confirms that there must be some reason other than overcrowding which lowers the reading skills of students in Gotham *********************************************************
HOWEVER, I am still confused as to why D as an answer choice is irrelevant or less correct compared to E. Taking the catch 'only' into account, question can be rephrased as -
The cause(Overcrowding) always causes the effect (reading skills to decline), no other reason - Now D), Cause - Overcrowding (is present) Effect - Not present (Reading skills not declined). & E) Cause - Not present Effect - Present
D) can be interpreted as ..the cause does not always cause the effect and hence challenges the argument and E.. well.. E is right too.
Why is D as an answer wrong then is my question? As I know, there is only one correct answer in the GMAT. Others can be proved wrong. However, I haven't read an explanation yet where D is proved wrong !!.
I regret doing the post-mortem of the OA(:-O), but I am trying to figure how to quickly pick the answer to such questions. No use getting the answer right even in 3-4 minutes!! (Screws the whole pacing). Looking forward to comments.
Whats your take on Kaplan 800 CR, i guess its quite fuzzy...and i'm finding it difficult compare with other Gmat Verbal material... What's ur take, shall i go ahead with it?
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T.
What would strenghten this claim...??.. Please note that only information provided regarding train and flight is the duration in number of hours to travel between D and T.. so we should look out for the highlighted lines in the answer options, i.e. time and money..
(A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. -- Clarifies that its effectively going to the be the same in money spent for both options, whether vacationer chooses Train or plane, when travelling to railway or plane station..
(B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. -- Route should not be an issue... so NA
(C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. -- Doesnt matter to us.. this doesnt strenghten anything..so NA
(D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. -- Good point.. but I would wanna ignore this for now (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate. -- NA
Of all the options only option A and option D hold good... but for me option A works the best and strengthens the passage information..
I wud have marked option A
wat is the OA..??.. ;)
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
My take is option E. Option B and C are out. Out of A,D and E; A is out because there is no additional benefit of going by train. Now out of D and E; D gives higher comfort but E is stronger because if a cash rebate is givn by airlines people will definitely opt for it. E is stronger than D.
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
A is definately the answer.here we have to compare airline vs train and come out with a point that weight in favor of trains.only A does that. rest options are the advantages or disadvantages of the air or train. foe those marked as E-how can you say that people will prefer cost over time savings?
A is definately the answer.here we have to compare airline vs train and come out with a point that weight in favor of trains.only A does that. rest options are the advantages or disadvantages of the air or train. foe those marked as E-how can you say that people will prefer cost over time savings?
With same principle, how A) suggest that the time for to & fro to airport is same as the time for to & fro to the airport....
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
I'd go with A The passage states 2 things: time and money Time part is covered in the passage Money part is covered in (A)
Others don't make much sense.. B, C, D - don't support since B - route doesn't matter; C - 5 hours doesn't stand by itself, it needs to be compared with time taken by train - so irrelevant; D - comfort level - out of scope E - It isin't mentioned that when Airlines used to offer bonus points, people chose to prefer flights, so nothing can determined concretely.
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
Even I had marked A . However the OA turned out to be option B. The question is from a Kaplan Mock Test and I have posted the explanation as given in the key.
As its a round-trip and same route back can be assumed as time will be saved both ways. However option B does not talk about money/cost at all in round trip. .
Explanation as in the key: Conclusion: Vacationers from Country D to Country T wishing to save time and money should take the train rather than fly. Evidence: The flight time from D to T is half-an-hour longer than the train time.
Since the argument discusses vacationers who by definition must return to D the author assumes that the round trip deal is better by train. If the half-an-hour difference remains in effect for the return trip, then this supports the superiority of travelling by train. Knowing the cost of that the cost of getting to the train station is not more than getting to the airport does not give either option an advantage (A). If the flight time is usually much more than 5 hours, that would strengthen the argument, but if its usually much less than that, it would weaken the argument (C). The comfort level D is irrelevant. If the airline no longer awards bonus points, then its not as good a deal as it used to be, but that comparison is irrelevant; the issue is how it compares to the train tide (E).
(A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. -> The cost to-and from from the station is given , however the time is also not given , so not a feasible as it only strengthens the Cost part. The time could be greater where in it would nullify the cost advantage. This I would never mark because of the TIME FACTOR.
(B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. -> Coming back to this stuff , this option though weird, we assume that vaccationers would be coming back from the same route by which they travel. Hence they would be saving an hour by travelling with train. ( I mark this answer only because rest all weaken one part of the statement either the cost or the time ) (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. -> Nothing can be inferred or assumed out of this , so not an option again . This is given in the question so just a mere repetition of data. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. -> Comfort can come with an extra price (assumption ) , so definitely nothing to do with cost and price. Comfort always comes with an extra price.
(E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate. -> It means that there were offers provided however nothing is said about the money which is saved after the offer is provided. So leaves us to cancel this. Though I would have definitely marked this as one for the most strong ones. However we need a statement which would strengthen the conclusion . I am still thinking of this one 😞 .
Even I had marked A . However the OA turned out to be option B. The question is from a Kaplan Mock Test and I have posted the explanation as given in the key.
As its a round-trip and same route back can be assumed as time will be saved both ways. However option B does not talk about money/cost at all in round trip. .
Explanation as in the key: Conclusion: Vacationers from Country D to Country T wishing to save time and money should take the train rather than fly. Evidence: The flight time from D to T is half-an-hour longer than the train time. Since the argument discusses vacationers - who by definition must return to D - the author assumes that the round trip deal is better by train. If the half-an-hour difference remains in effect for the return trip, then this supports the superiority of travelling by train. Knowing the cost of that the cost of getting to the train station is not more than getting to the airport does not give either option an advantage (A). If the flight time is usually much more than 5 hours, that would strengthen the argument, but if it's usually much less than that, it would weaken the argument (C). The comfort level D is irrelevant. If the airline no longer awards bonus points, then its not as good a deal as it used to be, but that comparison is irrelevant; the issue is how it compares to the train tide (E).
the answer as B seems absurd to me.only option A compares apple with apple. from the time difference we can't say air or train is better bcoz we dont know the cost.but once we know the same basis for comparision, A wins.
Even I had marked A . However the OA turned out to be option B. The question is from a Kaplan Mock Test and I have posted the explanation as given in the key.
As its a round-trip and same route back can be assumed as time will be saved both ways. However option B does not talk about money/cost at all in round trip. .
Explanation as in the key: Conclusion: Vacationers from Country D to Country T wishing to save time and money should take the train rather than fly. Evidence: The flight time from D to T is half-an-hour longer than the train time.
Since the argument discusses vacationers who by definition must return to D the author assumes that the round trip deal is better by train. If the half-an-hour difference remains in effect for the return trip, then this supports the superiority of travelling by train. Knowing the cost of that the cost of getting to the train station is not more than getting to the airport does not give either option an advantage (A). If the flight time is usually much more than 5 hours, that would strengthen the argument, but if its usually much less than that, it would weaken the argument (C). The comfort level D is irrelevant. If the airline no longer awards bonus points, then its not as good a deal as it used to be, but that comparison is irrelevant; the issue is how it compares to the train tide (E).
I think Kaplan underplayed option A There could be a situation where cost plays a significant role in determining by air or train, even though the 1 hr difference in train is a comparative benefit. Option B - The reasoning provided simply proves you save 1 hr on round trip by train. But not a good reason to prefer by train from D to T. I found it very vague
(B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. -> Coming back to this stuff , this option though weird, we assume that vaccationers would be coming back from the same route by which they travel. Hence they would be saving an hour by travelling with train. ( I mark this answer only because rest all weaken one part of the statement either the cost or the time ) (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate. -> It means that there were offers provided however nothing is said about the money which is saved after the offer is provided. So leaves us to cancel this. Though I would have definitely marked this as one for the most strong ones. However we need a statement which would strengthen the conclusion . I am still thinking of this one 😞 .
I had also marked the option E. but whan i think again, i had assumed that cost of travel by airlines would be definitely ore than that of train. but we do not have actual figures on the cost factor. On the contrary we have the actual figures of time estimate which clearly tells that 1 hour would be saved if i travel by train. Correct option has to be option B
23. The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T. Which of the following if true would best strengthen the argument? (A) For most residents of country D, the cost of getting to and from the train stations is about the same as the cost of getting to and from the airport. (B) The routes for both flight and train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction. (C) The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T. (D) The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort. (E) The airlines that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.
...Good one...
. However the OA turned out to be option B. The question is from a Kaplan Mock Test and I have posted the explanation as given in the key.
.