All Exams >
GMAT >
35 Days Preparation for GMAT >
All Questions
All questions of Daily Practice Tests for GMAT Exam
[x] denotes to be the least integer no less than x. Is [2d] = 0?(1) [d] = 0
(2) [3d] = 0- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
[x] denotes to be the least integer no less than x. Is [2d] = 0?
(1) [d] = 0
(2) [3d] = 0
(2) [3d] = 0
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
Statement (1): [d] = 0
This statement tells us that [d], the least integer no less than d, is equal to 0. However, it doesn't provide any specific information about the value of d. Without knowledge of the value of d, we cannot determine the value of [2d] or whether it is equal to 0 based on this statement alone.
This statement tells us that [d], the least integer no less than d, is equal to 0. However, it doesn't provide any specific information about the value of d. Without knowledge of the value of d, we cannot determine the value of [2d] or whether it is equal to 0 based on this statement alone.
Statement (2): [3d] = 0
This statement tells us that [3d], the least integer no less than 3d, is equal to 0. It provides information about the value of 3d, but it doesn't directly give information about the value of 2d or [2d]. Since the least integer no less than 3d is 0, it implies that 3d lies between 0 and 1. From this, we can deduce that 2d is less than 1, but we cannot determine whether it is greater than or equal to 0. Therefore, statement (2) alone is not sufficient to determine whether [2d] is equal to 0.
This statement tells us that [3d], the least integer no less than 3d, is equal to 0. It provides information about the value of 3d, but it doesn't directly give information about the value of 2d or [2d]. Since the least integer no less than 3d is 0, it implies that 3d lies between 0 and 1. From this, we can deduce that 2d is less than 1, but we cannot determine whether it is greater than or equal to 0. Therefore, statement (2) alone is not sufficient to determine whether [2d] is equal to 0.
By evaluating both statements together, we know that [d] is equal to 0 from statement (1), and [3d] is equal to 0 from statement (2). However, this combined information still doesn't directly provide the value of [2d] or whether it is equal to 0. The relationship between [d], [3d], and [2d] is not clear.
Therefore, statement (2) alone is sufficient to answer the question asked, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient. The correct answer is B: Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
विधार्थियों की एक कतार में नीता दाँहिने से 8 वीं एवं राजा दाँहिनें से 16 वाँ है। कतार में कितने लड़के है?- a)22
- b)24
- c)23
- d)अपर्याप्त आँकड़े
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
विधार्थियों की एक कतार में नीता दाँहिने से 8 वीं एवं राजा दाँहिनें से 16 वाँ है। कतार में कितने लड़के है?
a)
22
b)
24
c)
23
d)
अपर्याप्त आँकड़े
|
Disha Mehta answered |
Problem: Nita is 8th from the left and Raja is 16th from the right end in a queue of students. How many boys are there in the queue?
Solution:
Let the number of boys in the queue be 'x'.
From the left end, Nita is 8th, so the number of girls before her = 8 - 1 = 7.
From the right end, Raja is 16th, so the number of girls after him = 16 - 1 = 15.
Therefore, the total number of students in the queue = boys + girls = x + 7 + 15 = x + 22.
We know that the total number of students in the queue is same from both ends, i.e.,
x + 22 = Total number of students in the queue.
Therefore, x = Total number of students in the queue - 22.
But, we do not have the value of the total number of students in the queue.
Hence, the answer is 'D) Insufficient data'.
Solution:
Let the number of boys in the queue be 'x'.
From the left end, Nita is 8th, so the number of girls before her = 8 - 1 = 7.
From the right end, Raja is 16th, so the number of girls after him = 16 - 1 = 15.
Therefore, the total number of students in the queue = boys + girls = x + 7 + 15 = x + 22.
We know that the total number of students in the queue is same from both ends, i.e.,
x + 22 = Total number of students in the queue.
Therefore, x = Total number of students in the queue - 22.
But, we do not have the value of the total number of students in the queue.
Hence, the answer is 'D) Insufficient data'.
Due to high jet fuel costs, airline carriers are looking for new ways to increase revenues and thereby counteract declining profits. Airline A has proposed increasing the number of passengers that can fit on its airplanes by creating several standing room only "seats" in which passengers would be propped against a padded backboard and held in place with a harness. This proposal, since it relates to passenger safety, cannot be implemented without prior approval by the Federal Aviation Administration.The above statements, if true, indicate that Airline A has made which of the following conclusions?- a)The addition of standing room only "seats" will generate more revenue than the cost of ensuring that these seats meet safety standards.
- b)The Federal Aviation Administration will approve Airline A's specific proposal.
- c)The revenue generated by the addition of standing room only "seats" is greater than the current cost of jet fuel.
- d)There are no safer ways in which Airline A can increase revenues.
- e)Passenger safety is less important than increasing revenue.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Due to high jet fuel costs, airline carriers are looking for new ways to increase revenues and thereby counteract declining profits. Airline A has proposed increasing the number of passengers that can fit on its airplanes by creating several standing room only "seats" in which passengers would be propped against a padded backboard and held in place with a harness. This proposal, since it relates to passenger safety, cannot be implemented without prior approval by the Federal Aviation Administration.
The above statements, if true, indicate that Airline A has made which of the following conclusions?
a)
The addition of standing room only "seats" will generate more revenue than the cost of ensuring that these seats meet safety standards.
b)
The Federal Aviation Administration will approve Airline A's specific proposal.
c)
The revenue generated by the addition of standing room only "seats" is greater than the current cost of jet fuel.
d)
There are no safer ways in which Airline A can increase revenues.
e)
Passenger safety is less important than increasing revenue.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
Only two pieces of information are given about Airline A's standing room "seats" proposal. First, that it is geared toward increasing revenue in order to counteract declining profits. And second, that, since the proposal relates to passenger safety, it must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. Airline A must have concluded that the cost of implementation of its proposal is less than the revenue that the new seats will generate.
(A) Since Airline A knows that its proposal would have to comply with safety standards, it must have concluded that the cost of compliance is worth it. In other words, the only way for Airline A to achieve its goal of increasing profit is to implement ideas that will generate more revenue than they cost. Airline A must therefore have concluded that the standing room only "seats" meet this criteria.
(B) The statements in the passage imply nothing about whether Airline A believes that the Federal Aviation Administration will approve the proposal. Although Airline A must believe that the proposal has a chance of being approved (otherwise it's unlikely to have proposed it), the airline might have proposed its specific plan knowing that it might not be approved or, that it might have to be changed in certain ways.
(C) Airline A's goal is simply to "counteract declining profits" caused by the high cost of jet fuel. This does not mean, however, that the proposal must fully mitigate the cost of jet fuel. As long as the proposal increases revenue without a corollary increase in cost, it will in some way (even if it's relatively small) counteract declining profits.
(D) The passage does not mention any other ways that Airline A has considered increasing revenue. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude anything about Airline A's perception of its standing room "seats" proposal to any other ideas.
(E) The statements in the passage do not address Airline A's view regarding the safety of the standing room only "seats". It is very possible that Airline A views its proposal as safe and sees no conflict between passenger safety and increasing revenue, much less that it has made any determination about the relative importance of these two issues.
For any integers x and y, min(x,y) and max(x,y) denote the minimum and the maximum of x and y, respectively. For example, min(5,2) = 2 and max(5,2) = 5. For the integers a and b, what is the value of max(a,b)?(1) a > b
(2) ab = −1- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
For any integers x and y, min(x,y) and max(x,y) denote the minimum and the maximum of x and y, respectively. For example, min(5,2) = 2 and max(5,2) = 5. For the integers a and b, what is the value of max(a,b)?
(1) a > b
(2) ab = −1
(2) ab = −1
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
|
Geetika Sarkar answered |
Understanding the Problem
To find the value of max(a, b), we need to analyze the information given in the statements.
Evaluating Statement (1)
- Statement (1): a > b
- If a is greater than b, then we can directly conclude that max(a, b) = a.
- Thus, this statement alone is sufficient to determine the value of max(a, b).
Evaluating Statement (2)
- Statement (2): ab = -1
- This implies that one of the integers is positive and the other is negative (since their product is negative).
- However, without knowing the specific values of a and b, we cannot definitively say which one is larger. For example:
- If a = 1 and b = -1, then max(a, b) = 1.
- If a = -1 and b = 1, then max(a, b) = 1.
- If a = -1 and b = 1, then max(a, b) = 1.
- Therefore, this statement alone is not sufficient to find max(a, b).
Conclusion
- Final Analysis
- Statement (1) is sufficient.
- Statement (2) is not sufficient.
Thus, the correct answer is option B: Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
To find the value of max(a, b), we need to analyze the information given in the statements.
Evaluating Statement (1)
- Statement (1): a > b
- If a is greater than b, then we can directly conclude that max(a, b) = a.
- Thus, this statement alone is sufficient to determine the value of max(a, b).
Evaluating Statement (2)
- Statement (2): ab = -1
- This implies that one of the integers is positive and the other is negative (since their product is negative).
- However, without knowing the specific values of a and b, we cannot definitively say which one is larger. For example:
- If a = 1 and b = -1, then max(a, b) = 1.
- If a = -1 and b = 1, then max(a, b) = 1.
- If a = -1 and b = 1, then max(a, b) = 1.
- Therefore, this statement alone is not sufficient to find max(a, b).
Conclusion
- Final Analysis
- Statement (1) is sufficient.
- Statement (2) is not sufficient.
Thus, the correct answer is option B: Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
छः मित्र A, B, C, D, E और F पूरब की ओर मुहँ करके एक पंक्ति में बैठे हैं। C बीच में है, A और E के। B, E के निकटतम दाँयें लेकिन D के बाँयी ओर हैं। F दाँयें छोर पर नहीं हैं। A के बाँयीं ओर कौन हैं?- a)E
- b)C
- c)D
- d)F
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
छः मित्र A, B, C, D, E और F पूरब की ओर मुहँ करके एक पंक्ति में बैठे हैं। C बीच में है, A और E के। B, E के निकटतम दाँयें लेकिन D के बाँयी ओर हैं। F दाँयें छोर पर नहीं हैं। A के बाँयीं ओर कौन हैं?
a)
E
b)
C
c)
D
d)
F
|
Mamali . answered |
A ki left hand side m F hoga
...
...
A function "a#b" is defined for integers a and b such that a#b = a+b if both a and b are odd, and a#b = (a*b)/2 otherwise. For integers x and y, what is x#y?(1) |y| < 1.
(2) x = 14k, where 'k' is a non negative integer.- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
A function "a#b" is defined for integers a and b such that a#b = a+b if both a and b are odd, and a#b = (a*b)/2 otherwise. For integers x and y, what is x#y?
(1) |y| < 1.
(2) x = 14k, where 'k' is a non negative integer.
(2) x = 14k, where 'k' is a non negative integer.
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
Anirban Das answered |
Statement Analysis:
Statement 1:
Given that |y| < 1,="" y="" must="" be="" a="" non-zero="" integer.="" this="" means="" that="" y="" is="" either="" 1="" or="" -1.="" since="" both="" y="1" and="" y="-1" are="" odd="" integers,="" we="" can="" determine="" the="" value="" of="" x#y="" using="" the="" function="" />
Therefore, statement 1 alone is sufficient to determine x#y.
Statement 2:
Given that x = 14k, where k is a non-negative integer, we know that x is a multiple of 14. However, this statement does not provide any information about the value of y. Since y could be any integer, statement 2 alone is not sufficient to determine x#y.
Combined Analysis:
Combining both statements, we know that y is either 1 or -1 from statement 1 and x is a multiple of 14 from statement 2. Since y = 1 or y = -1 are odd integers, we can determine x#y using the function definition in both cases.
Therefore, both statements together are sufficient to determine x#y.
Therefore, the correct answer is option A.
Statement 1:
Given that |y| < 1,="" y="" must="" be="" a="" non-zero="" integer.="" this="" means="" that="" y="" is="" either="" 1="" or="" -1.="" since="" both="" y="1" and="" y="-1" are="" odd="" integers,="" we="" can="" determine="" the="" value="" of="" x#y="" using="" the="" function="" />
Therefore, statement 1 alone is sufficient to determine x#y.
Statement 2:
Given that x = 14k, where k is a non-negative integer, we know that x is a multiple of 14. However, this statement does not provide any information about the value of y. Since y could be any integer, statement 2 alone is not sufficient to determine x#y.
Combined Analysis:
Combining both statements, we know that y is either 1 or -1 from statement 1 and x is a multiple of 14 from statement 2. Since y = 1 or y = -1 are odd integers, we can determine x#y using the function definition in both cases.
Therefore, both statements together are sufficient to determine x#y.
Therefore, the correct answer is option A.
Five integers in a set are written ascending order. The median of this set is 17, and the average of the smallest and largest integers is 16. When the smallest and largest numbers are removed from the set, the average of the new smallest and largest integers is 15. What can be the minimum value of the largest of the original five integers?- a)17
- b)18
- c)19
- d)20
- e)21
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Five integers in a set are written ascending order. The median of this set is 17, and the average of the smallest and largest integers is 16. When the smallest and largest numbers are removed from the set, the average of the new smallest and largest integers is 15. What can be the minimum value of the largest of the original five integers?
a)
17
b)
18
c)
19
d)
20
e)
21
|
EduRev GMAT answered |
Here we have N1, N2, N3, N4, N5 where the median N3 = 17.
We are given that (N1+N5)/2 = 16 and (N2+N4)/2 = 30. Simplify these to be N1+N5=32 and N2 + N4 = 30.
The difference in the values of N1+N5 and N2+N4 is 2. This means that from the lower and upper bounds, the highest value number and/or the lowest value number has to be at least 2 from the median (N4 cannot be valued below 17 and N2 cannot be above 17 - that would break the rule). We are asked what can be the minimum value of the largest of original five inetegers AKA what is the value of N5? I think we found the answer in the prior sentence (N5 is at least 2 higher than N3), but let's test cases to be sure.
N5 + N1 = 32
19 + N1 = 32 => N1 = 13
Now we must address N2 + N4 = 30
Our bounds are now 13 ≤ N2 ≤ 17 and 17 ≤ N4 ≤ 19 but we have to make the overall value drop by 2. We obviously cannot have N2 < N1 so we must have N2 ≥ N1 and manipulate the upper bound.
13+N4=30 => N4 = 17.
If we were to increase N2 to 14, then N4 would have to equal 16 but we cannot have N4 cross the value of the median so this does not work.
As such you can see 19 is the correct answer for the lowest value for N5. IMO answer is C.
N5 + N1 = 32
19 + N1 = 32 => N1 = 13
Now we must address N2 + N4 = 30
Our bounds are now 13 ≤ N2 ≤ 17 and 17 ≤ N4 ≤ 19 but we have to make the overall value drop by 2. We obviously cannot have N2 < N1 so we must have N2 ≥ N1 and manipulate the upper bound.
13+N4=30 => N4 = 17.
If we were to increase N2 to 14, then N4 would have to equal 16 but we cannot have N4 cross the value of the median so this does not work.
As such you can see 19 is the correct answer for the lowest value for N5. IMO answer is C.
Large corporations use several strategies to minimize their tax payments, without doing anything explicitly illegal. One such strategy involves the use of transfer pricing, when subsidiaries in different countries charge each other for goods or services “sold” within the group. This is particularly popular among technology and drug companies that have lots of intellectual property, the value of which is especially subjective. These intra-company royalty transactions are supposed to be arm’s-length, but are often priced to minimize profits in high-tax countries and maximize them in low-tax ones.If the above statements are true, then which of the following could be a strategy adopted by a company that wants to get the maximum benefit out of transfer pricing?- a)Sell its subsidiary located in a high tax rate country products at low prices
- b)Charge its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country higher prices for products sold
- c)Pay its subsidiary located in a high tax rate country high prices for products bought
- d)Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country low prices for products bought
- e)Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country high prices for products bought
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Large corporations use several strategies to minimize their tax payments, without doing anything explicitly illegal. One such strategy involves the use of transfer pricing, when subsidiaries in different countries charge each other for goods or services “sold” within the group. This is particularly popular among technology and drug companies that have lots of intellectual property, the value of which is especially subjective. These intra-company royalty transactions are supposed to be arm’s-length, but are often priced to minimize profits in high-tax countries and maximize them in low-tax ones.
If the above statements are true, then which of the following could be a strategy adopted by a company that wants to get the maximum benefit out of transfer pricing?
a)
Sell its subsidiary located in a high tax rate country products at low prices
b)
Charge its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country higher prices for products sold
c)
Pay its subsidiary located in a high tax rate country high prices for products bought
d)
Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country low prices for products bought
e)
Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country high prices for products bought
|
BT Educators answered |
The strategy adopted by a company to maximize the benefits of transfer pricing would involve manipulating the prices of goods or services between its subsidiaries in different countries. Based on the given information, the company aims to minimize profits in high-tax countries and maximize them in low-tax countries. Let's analyze each option to determine which strategy aligns with this objective.
(A) Sell its subsidiary located in a high tax rate country products at low prices:
- This strategy would result in low profits for the subsidiary in the high-tax country, aligning with the objective of minimizing profits in high-tax countries. However, it does not maximize profits in low-tax countries. This option does not fully meet the company's objective.
(B) Charge its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country higher prices for products sold:
- This strategy would lead to higher profits for the subsidiary in the low-tax country, aligning with the objective of maximizing profits in low-tax countries. However, it does not minimize profits in high-tax countries. This option does not fully meet the company's objective.
(C) Pay its subsidiary located in a high tax rate country high prices for products bought:
- This strategy would increase expenses for the subsidiary in the high-tax country, resulting in lower profits and potentially reducing the tax liability in that country. However, it does not maximize profits in low-tax countries. This option does not fully meet the company's objective.
(D) Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country low prices for products bought:
- This strategy would decrease expenses for the subsidiary in the low-tax country, leading to higher profits and potentially reducing the tax liability in that country. However, it does not minimize profits in high-tax countries. This option does not fully meet the company's objective.
(E) Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country high prices for products bought:
- This strategy would increase expenses for the subsidiary in the low-tax country, resulting in lower profits and potentially reducing the tax liability in that country. Additionally, it would align with the objective of maximizing profits in low-tax countries. Moreover, by setting high prices for products bought, the subsidiary in the low-tax country can shift profits to that jurisdiction, taking advantage of the lower tax rates. This option fully meets the company's objective of minimizing profits in high-tax countries and maximizing them in low-tax countries.
Therefore, the strategy that aligns with the objective of maximizing the benefits of transfer pricing is: (E) Pay its subsidiary located in a low tax rate country high prices for products bought.
It is probably within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable. It might be several centuries before people could live there, even with breathing apparatuses, but some of the world’s great temples and cathedrals took centuries to build. Research efforts now are justified if there is even a chance of making another planet inhabitable. Besides, the intellectual exercise of understanding how the Martian atmosphere might be changed could help in understanding atmospheric changes inadvertently triggered by human activity on Earth.The main point of the argument is that- a)It is probably technologically possible for humankind to alter the climate of Mars.
- b)It would take several centuries to make Mars even marginally inhabitable.
- c)Making Mars inhabitable is an effort comparable to building a great temple or cathedral.
- d)Research efforts aimed at discovering how to change the climate of Mars are justified.
- e)Efforts to change the climate of Mars could facilitate understanding of the Earth’s climate.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
It is probably within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable. It might be several centuries before people could live there, even with breathing apparatuses, but some of the world’s great temples and cathedrals took centuries to build. Research efforts now are justified if there is even a chance of making another planet inhabitable. Besides, the intellectual exercise of understanding how the Martian atmosphere might be changed could help in understanding atmospheric changes inadvertently triggered by human activity on Earth.
The main point of the argument is that
a)
It is probably technologically possible for humankind to alter the climate of Mars.
b)
It would take several centuries to make Mars even marginally inhabitable.
c)
Making Mars inhabitable is an effort comparable to building a great temple or cathedral.
d)
Research efforts aimed at discovering how to change the climate of Mars are justified.
e)
Efforts to change the climate of Mars could facilitate understanding of the Earth’s climate.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
The argument presented suggests that research efforts to alter the climate of Mars are justified for several reasons. Let's break down the main points supporting this conclusion:
- Technological possibility: The argument assumes that it is within the reach of human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable. While it acknowledges that it might take several centuries and the use of breathing apparatuses, it still suggests that the technological feasibility exists.
- Comparison to great temples and cathedrals: The argument draws a parallel between the effort required to make Mars inhabitable and the construction of great temples and cathedrals. It implies that just as those structures took centuries to build, the process of making Mars habitable might also be a long-term endeavor. This comparison emphasizes the magnitude of the effort involved.
- Justification for research efforts: The argument asserts that even if there is only a chance of making another planet inhabitable, it is still worthwhile to invest in research efforts. It suggests that the potential benefits and knowledge gained from such endeavors justify the allocation of resources and time.
- Understanding Earth's climate: Another point made in the argument is that the intellectual exercise of understanding how to change the Martian atmosphere could aid in comprehending the atmospheric changes inadvertently triggered by human activity on Earth. By studying the processes involved in altering Mars' climate, scientists might gain insights into the consequences of human activities on our own planet.
In summary, the main point of the argument is that research efforts aimed at discovering how to change the climate of Mars are justified, considering the technological feasibility, the long-term nature of the endeavor, the potential benefits, and the potential insights into Earth's climate.
If b is prime and the symbol # represents one of the following operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division, is the value of b # 2 even or odd?(1) (b # 1) # 2 = 5
(2) 4 # b = 3 # (1 # b) and b is even- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
If b is prime and the symbol # represents one of the following operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division, is the value of b # 2 even or odd?
(1) (b # 1) # 2 = 5
(2) 4 # b = 3 # (1 # b) and b is even
(2) 4 # b = 3 # (1 # b) and b is even
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
Talent Skill Learning answered |
Statement (1): (b # 1) # 2 = 5
This statement tells us that the result of performing the operation represented by # on b and 1, and then performing the operation on the result and 2, is equal to 5. However, since we don't know the specific operation represented by #, we can't determine the value of b # 2. Therefore, statement (1) alone is not sufficient to determine whether the value of b # 2 is even or odd.
This statement tells us that the result of performing the operation represented by # on b and 1, and then performing the operation on the result and 2, is equal to 5. However, since we don't know the specific operation represented by #, we can't determine the value of b # 2. Therefore, statement (1) alone is not sufficient to determine whether the value of b # 2 is even or odd.
Statement (2): 4 # b = 3 # (1 # b) and b is even
This statement tells us that the result of performing the operation represented by # on 4 and b is equal to the result of performing the operation represented by # on 3 and the result of performing the operation on 1 and b. Additionally, it specifies that b is even. However, similar to statement (1), since we don't know the specific operation represented by #, we can't determine the value of b # 2. Therefore, statement (2) alone is not sufficient to determine whether the value of b # 2 is even or odd.
This statement tells us that the result of performing the operation represented by # on 4 and b is equal to the result of performing the operation represented by # on 3 and the result of performing the operation on 1 and b. Additionally, it specifies that b is even. However, similar to statement (1), since we don't know the specific operation represented by #, we can't determine the value of b # 2. Therefore, statement (2) alone is not sufficient to determine whether the value of b # 2 is even or odd.
Since neither statement alone is sufficient, let's consider them together. Unfortunately, even when considering both statements together, we still don't have enough information to determine the value of b # 2. The relationship between b, the operation represented by #, and the specific values involved in the statements is not clear. Therefore, statements (1) and (2) together are not sufficient to determine whether the value of b # 2 is even or odd.
As a result, each statement alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked. The correct answer is E: Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed.
A jar of 264 marbles is divided equally among a group of marble-players. If 2 people join the group, each one would receive 1 marble less. How many people are there in the group today?
- a)20
- b)21
- c)22
- d)23
- e)76
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
A jar of 264 marbles is divided equally among a group of marble-players. If 2 people join the group, each one would receive 1 marble less. How many people are there in the group today?
a)
20
b)
21
c)
22
d)
23
e)
76
|
|
EduRev GMAT answered |
The best answer is C.
You can back-solve it. 264 marbles divided by 22 (answer C) is 12 marbles per person.
If two people join, there will be 24 people, 264/24 is 11, which is 1 marble less.
If two people join, there will be 24 people, 264/24 is 11, which is 1 marble less.
Two candles of the same height are lighted at the same time. The first candle is consumed in 4 hours and the second one in 3 hours. Assume that each candle burns at the same rate. In how many hours will the first candle measure twice the height of the second candle?- a)1 hour and 12 minutes
- b)2 hours and 24 minutes
- c)3 hours and 45 minutes
- d)4 hours and 10 minutes
- e)4 hours and 48 minutes
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Two candles of the same height are lighted at the same time. The first candle is consumed in 4 hours and the second one in 3 hours. Assume that each candle burns at the same rate. In how many hours will the first candle measure twice the height of the second candle?
a)
1 hour and 12 minutes
b)
2 hours and 24 minutes
c)
3 hours and 45 minutes
d)
4 hours and 10 minutes
e)
4 hours and 48 minutes
|
|
Avantika Dey answered |
Understanding the Problem
To determine when the first candle will measure twice the height of the second, we first need to establish their burning rates and remaining heights over time.
Burning Rates of the Candles
- The first candle burns completely in 4 hours, meaning it burns at a rate of 1/4 of its height per hour.
- The second candle burns completely in 3 hours, so it burns at a rate of 1/3 of its height per hour.
Initial Heights of the Candles
Assuming both candles start at a height of 1 unit:
- After t hours, the height of the first candle:
Height1 = 1 - (1/4)t
- After t hours, the height of the second candle:
Height2 = 1 - (1/3)t
Setting Up the Equation
We want to find t when Height1 = 2 * Height2.
So, we set up the equation:
1 - (1/4)t = 2 * (1 - (1/3)t)
Simplifying the Equation
1 - (1/4)t = 2 - (2/3)t
To solve for t, rearranging gives us:
(2/3)t - (1/4)t = 1
Finding a common denominator (12):
(8/12)t - (3/12)t = 1
Combining terms:
(5/12)t = 1
Calculating t
t = 12/5 = 2.4 hours, which is equivalent to 2 hours and 24 minutes.
Conclusion
Thus, the first candle will measure twice the height of the second candle in 2 hours and 24 minutes, confirming that the correct answer is option B.
To determine when the first candle will measure twice the height of the second, we first need to establish their burning rates and remaining heights over time.
Burning Rates of the Candles
- The first candle burns completely in 4 hours, meaning it burns at a rate of 1/4 of its height per hour.
- The second candle burns completely in 3 hours, so it burns at a rate of 1/3 of its height per hour.
Initial Heights of the Candles
Assuming both candles start at a height of 1 unit:
- After t hours, the height of the first candle:
Height1 = 1 - (1/4)t
- After t hours, the height of the second candle:
Height2 = 1 - (1/3)t
Setting Up the Equation
We want to find t when Height1 = 2 * Height2.
So, we set up the equation:
1 - (1/4)t = 2 * (1 - (1/3)t)
Simplifying the Equation
1 - (1/4)t = 2 - (2/3)t
To solve for t, rearranging gives us:
(2/3)t - (1/4)t = 1
Finding a common denominator (12):
(8/12)t - (3/12)t = 1
Combining terms:
(5/12)t = 1
Calculating t
t = 12/5 = 2.4 hours, which is equivalent to 2 hours and 24 minutes.
Conclusion
Thus, the first candle will measure twice the height of the second candle in 2 hours and 24 minutes, confirming that the correct answer is option B.
A survey conducted recently in the city indicated that most college welfare-aid applicants understate the number of luxury items - such as cars and TVs – that their family owned, in an effort to maximize the amount of aid they can claim from the city. Paradoxically, the same study also found that many applicants claimed that they had running water and a gas connection even when they did not.Which of the following best explains the apparent paradox?- a)The city does not pay welfare unless the applicants have at least some things working for them.
- b)Claiming that they do not have a car or a TV ensures that the city looks at the applicant more favorably.
- c)While the applicants may be willing to accept that they don't have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they don't have most things.
- d)Historically, at least 30℅ of the claims have had people understating what they have while only 22℅ overstated what they had.
- e)The people who understated what they had were not the same people who overstated what they had.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
A survey conducted recently in the city indicated that most college welfare-aid applicants understate the number of luxury items - such as cars and TVs – that their family owned, in an effort to maximize the amount of aid they can claim from the city. Paradoxically, the same study also found that many applicants claimed that they had running water and a gas connection even when they did not.
Which of the following best explains the apparent paradox?
a)
The city does not pay welfare unless the applicants have at least some things working for them.
b)
Claiming that they do not have a car or a TV ensures that the city looks at the applicant more favorably.
c)
While the applicants may be willing to accept that they don't have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they don't have most things.
d)
Historically, at least 30℅ of the claims have had people understating what they have while only 22℅ overstated what they had.
e)
The people who understated what they had were not the same people who overstated what they had.
|
|
Sharmila Singh answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The argument presents a contradiction in the behavior of college welfare-aid applicants. While they understate the extent to which they have certain items, in order to maximize the loan, they also seem to overstate the extent to which they have some items.
The argument presents a contradiction in the behavior of college welfare-aid applicants. While they understate the extent to which they have certain items, in order to maximize the loan, they also seem to overstate the extent to which they have some items.
To resolve the discrepancy, the correct answer option must explain their motivation to overstate certain things. Why they understate certain items is explained in the argument itself – to maximize the amount of loan. So, even though understating can possibly maximize their loan, why do many of these applicants overstate some items? That is the question that the correct option must answer.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) does not work for a couple of reasons. The option states that the city wants people to already have certain things. That is contrary to the very notion of welfare-aid. Moreover, if the city just wants people to already have certain things, why not just claim that they have a TV? The option does not specify what the city expects the people to already have.
Option (B) explains why candidates for aid would understate the extent to which they have certain things. But why would they claim to have running water when they do not? If option (B) were true, would not their application be treated even more favourably if they do not have water. Essentially, the option repeats one part of what is already given in the argument and provides no justification for the other part.
Option (D) has no impact on the argument. What does the percentage of people understating or overstating matter when attempting to explain WHY they do so?
Option (E) like Option (D), has no impact on the argument. Whether the people were the same or different does not explain WHY they under or overstated what they had.
Option (C) explains why they would overstate certain things such as running water – they were too embarrassed to confide that they did not have necessities. However, they understated other things to maximize aid.
Option C is the correct answer.
Option (A) does not work for a couple of reasons. The option states that the city wants people to already have certain things. That is contrary to the very notion of welfare-aid. Moreover, if the city just wants people to already have certain things, why not just claim that they have a TV? The option does not specify what the city expects the people to already have.
Option (B) explains why candidates for aid would understate the extent to which they have certain things. But why would they claim to have running water when they do not? If option (B) were true, would not their application be treated even more favourably if they do not have water. Essentially, the option repeats one part of what is already given in the argument and provides no justification for the other part.
Option (D) has no impact on the argument. What does the percentage of people understating or overstating matter when attempting to explain WHY they do so?
Option (E) like Option (D), has no impact on the argument. Whether the people were the same or different does not explain WHY they under or overstated what they had.
Option (C) explains why they would overstate certain things such as running water – they were too embarrassed to confide that they did not have necessities. However, they understated other things to maximize aid.
Option C is the correct answer.
It seems that medical care is constantly improving and is far better today than it was a few years ago. New medicines are being developed, and at a lower cost. Technological advancements are being made and new treatments are devised. However, hospital care has not improved as much as expected. Most hospitals do not have a large enough ER that can handle a sudden influx of patients and the number of people who die in a hospital due to reasons other than what they got admitted for is staggeringly high.All of the following underscore the author’s argument EXCEPT- a)Most hospitals require doctors to do so much paperwork that they spend insufficient time on direct patient care.
- b)Most hospitals recirculate air and therefore, it is very easy for diseases such as anthrax to spread through the hospital.
- c)In smaller cities, the ambulance service is on a voluntary basis and the response time for calls is much lower than the national average, leading to a higher loss of life.
- d)A number of doctors in private hospitals are not held accountable by the administration for the loss of patients.
- e)Doctors in most private hospitals have performance appraisals based on how much money they have brought in for the hospital rather than based on how effectively they treated patients.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
It seems that medical care is constantly improving and is far better today than it was a few years ago. New medicines are being developed, and at a lower cost. Technological advancements are being made and new treatments are devised. However, hospital care has not improved as much as expected. Most hospitals do not have a large enough ER that can handle a sudden influx of patients and the number of people who die in a hospital due to reasons other than what they got admitted for is staggeringly high.
All of the following underscore the author’s argument EXCEPT
a)
Most hospitals require doctors to do so much paperwork that they spend insufficient time on direct patient care.
b)
Most hospitals recirculate air and therefore, it is very easy for diseases such as anthrax to spread through the hospital.
c)
In smaller cities, the ambulance service is on a voluntary basis and the response time for calls is much lower than the national average, leading to a higher loss of life.
d)
A number of doctors in private hospitals are not held accountable by the administration for the loss of patients.
e)
Doctors in most private hospitals have performance appraisals based on how much money they have brought in for the hospital rather than based on how effectively they treated patients.
|
|
Jhanvi Saha answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The argument states that medical care has improved but that does not mean that the hospitals have become better. At first glance, it may look like the argument counters itself. However, the first few sentences are discussing the development of medical care and the last few sentences are specifically about hospital care.
The argument states that medical care has improved but that does not mean that the hospitals have become better. At first glance, it may look like the argument counters itself. However, the first few sentences are discussing the development of medical care and the last few sentences are specifically about hospital care.
The question asks us to identify the option that does NOT underscore, which is to strengthen, the author’s argument. Not strengthening does not necessarily mean weakening the argument. So, find four options that strengthen and the one left out is the answer.
To strengthen the argument, we need to establish that hospitals are not so good and that people die in hospitals for reasons other than their illness.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) implies that the hospitals have the doctors do so much other work that patient care takes a backseat. This can be used to strengthen the author’s argument that hospital care is not great. Therefore, option (A) can be eliminated.
If the hospitals recirculate air, making it easier for the diseases to spread, then that further justifies that people die of other diseases than the ones they get admitted for. Option (B) strengthens and can be eliminated.
If the doctors are not held accountable or held accountable for something other than patient care, then patient care takes a backseat. Both options (D) and (E) imply therefore, that the hospital care is not up to scratch.
The response time of ambulances do not reflect on extent of or quality of hospital care. This option does not weaken the argument nor does it strengthen. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion and is therefore the answer.
Option C is the correct answer.
Option (A) implies that the hospitals have the doctors do so much other work that patient care takes a backseat. This can be used to strengthen the author’s argument that hospital care is not great. Therefore, option (A) can be eliminated.
If the hospitals recirculate air, making it easier for the diseases to spread, then that further justifies that people die of other diseases than the ones they get admitted for. Option (B) strengthens and can be eliminated.
If the doctors are not held accountable or held accountable for something other than patient care, then patient care takes a backseat. Both options (D) and (E) imply therefore, that the hospital care is not up to scratch.
The response time of ambulances do not reflect on extent of or quality of hospital care. This option does not weaken the argument nor does it strengthen. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion and is therefore the answer.
Option C is the correct answer.
100 people are attending a newspaper conference. 45 of them are writers and more than 38 are editors. Of the people at the conference, x are both writers and editors and 2x are neither. What is the largest possible number of people who are both writers and editors?- a)6
- b)16
- c)17
- d)33
- e)84
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
100 people are attending a newspaper conference. 45 of them are writers and more than 38 are editors. Of the people at the conference, x are both writers and editors and 2x are neither. What is the largest possible number of people who are both writers and editors?
a)
6
b)
16
c)
17
d)
33
e)
84
|
|
Ameya Yadav answered |
Understanding the Problem
We have 100 people at the conference, with the following information:
- 45 are writers.
- More than 38 are editors.
- x are both writers and editors.
- 2x are neither writers nor editors.
Setting Up the Equation
1. Total people at the conference: 100
2. Writers: 45
3. Editors: More than 38 (let's say 39 for calculation purposes)
4. People who are neither: 2x
5. Therefore, the total number of people who are either writers or editors can be represented as:
Total = Writers + Editors - Both + Neither
This gives us:
100 = 45 + (more than 38) - x + 2x
Simplifying the Equation
- Simplifying, we have:
100 = 45 + (39) - x + 2x
- This simplifies to:
100 = 84 + x
- Rearranging gives:
x = 100 - 84 = 16
Finding the Maximum Value of x
- Since we assumed 39 editors for our calculation, the actual number of editors can be more than 39.
- If we increase the number of editors slightly, the value of x (those who are both writers and editors) can remain at 16 as long as the total remains 100.
Conclusion
The maximum number of people who can be both writers and editors (x) while satisfying all conditions is:
16
Thus, the correct answer is option 'B'.
We have 100 people at the conference, with the following information:
- 45 are writers.
- More than 38 are editors.
- x are both writers and editors.
- 2x are neither writers nor editors.
Setting Up the Equation
1. Total people at the conference: 100
2. Writers: 45
3. Editors: More than 38 (let's say 39 for calculation purposes)
4. People who are neither: 2x
5. Therefore, the total number of people who are either writers or editors can be represented as:
Total = Writers + Editors - Both + Neither
This gives us:
100 = 45 + (more than 38) - x + 2x
Simplifying the Equation
- Simplifying, we have:
100 = 45 + (39) - x + 2x
- This simplifies to:
100 = 84 + x
- Rearranging gives:
x = 100 - 84 = 16
Finding the Maximum Value of x
- Since we assumed 39 editors for our calculation, the actual number of editors can be more than 39.
- If we increase the number of editors slightly, the value of x (those who are both writers and editors) can remain at 16 as long as the total remains 100.
Conclusion
The maximum number of people who can be both writers and editors (x) while satisfying all conditions is:
16
Thus, the correct answer is option 'B'.
Music Industry executives have claimed that online file-sharing networks are significantly hurting their business because potential consumers are getting music for free that they would otherwise purchase. However, after file-sharing networks started to become popular, CD sales actually increased.Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradictions described above?- a)File-sharing networks carry a more complete variety of music than most traditional music stories.
- b)The few people using file-sharing networks already purchased more music than most people.
- c)Many people prefer to store their music as computer files rather than maintain large CD collections.
- d)Many consumers have purchased music by artists they discovered through file-sharing networks.
- e) Music available on file-sharing networks is on the same audio quality as music on commercially produced CDs.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Music Industry executives have claimed that online file-sharing networks are significantly hurting their business because potential consumers are getting music for free that they would otherwise purchase. However, after file-sharing networks started to become popular, CD sales actually increased.
Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradictions described above?
a)
File-sharing networks carry a more complete variety of music than most traditional music stories.
b)
The few people using file-sharing networks already purchased more music than most people.
c)
Many people prefer to store their music as computer files rather than maintain large CD collections.
d)
Many consumers have purchased music by artists they discovered through file-sharing networks.
e)
Music available on file-sharing networks is on the same audio quality as music on commercially produced CDs.
|
|
Disha Mehta answered |
(A) doesn't help because it doesn't explain why more CDs are being sold in traditional music stores. (B) mentions music that has already been purchased, so it doesn't explain why CD sales have increased after file-sharing networks grew in popularity. (C) deepens the mystery because it suggests that people would be unwilling to purchase more CDs. (D) suggests that many people discovered new artists through file sharing, but rather than just listen to these artists on file-sharing networks, they then purchased more music by these artists. This could certainly explain why CD sales increased After the file-sharing networks became popular, so this is our correct answer. (E) equalizes electronic music and music on CDs when it comes to audio quality, so why would people purchase more CDS after beginning to share music electronically for free? Choice (D) is correct.
For any positive number n, the function #n represents the value of the number n rounded to the nearest integer. If k is a positive number, what is the units digit of #k?(1) #(10k) = 10k
(2) #(100k) is 10300.- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
For any positive number n, the function #n represents the value of the number n rounded to the nearest integer. If k is a positive number, what is the units digit of #k?
(1) #(10k) = 10k
(2) #(100k) is 10300.
(2) #(100k) is 10300.
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
Statement (1): #(10k) = 10k
This statement tells us that when the number 10k is rounded to the nearest integer, it is equal to 10k. However, it doesn't provide any specific information about the value of k or the rounding behavior. Without knowledge of the value of k, we cannot determine the units digit of #k based on this statement alone.
This statement tells us that when the number 10k is rounded to the nearest integer, it is equal to 10k. However, it doesn't provide any specific information about the value of k or the rounding behavior. Without knowledge of the value of k, we cannot determine the units digit of #k based on this statement alone.
Statement (2): #(100k) is 10300.
This statement tells us that when the number 100k is rounded to the nearest integer, it is equal to 10300. From this statement, we can deduce that k lies between two consecutive integers such that rounding 100k to the nearest integer results in 10300. However, this information alone doesn't directly provide the value of k or the units digit of #k.
This statement tells us that when the number 100k is rounded to the nearest integer, it is equal to 10300. From this statement, we can deduce that k lies between two consecutive integers such that rounding 100k to the nearest integer results in 10300. However, this information alone doesn't directly provide the value of k or the units digit of #k.
By evaluating both statements together, we know that #(10k) = 10k from statement (1), and #(100k) = 10300 from statement (2). Combining these statements doesn't provide additional information that helps us determine the units digit of #k. The relationship between #(10k) and #(100k) is not clear, and we still lack specific information about the value of k.
Therefore, statement (2) alone is sufficient to determine the units digit of #k, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient. The correct answer is B: Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
The symbols $ and # each represent one of the following operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. What is the value of 1 $ 1 # 1?(1) 2 $ 2 # 2 = 3
(2) 3 $ 2 # 1 = 5- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
The symbols $ and # each represent one of the following operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. What is the value of 1 $ 1 # 1?
(1) 2 $ 2 # 2 = 3
(2) 3 $ 2 # 1 = 5
(2) 3 $ 2 # 1 = 5
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
Statement (1): 2 $ 2 # 2 = 3 From this statement, we know the result of the expression 2 $ 2 # 2 is 3. However, this information alone doesn't provide enough insight into the operations $ and # or how they interact. Therefore, statement (1) alone is not sufficient to determine the value of 1 $ 1 # 1.
Statement (2): 3 $ 2 # 1 = 5 From this statement, we know the result of the expression 3 $ 2 # 1 is 5. Similar to statement (1), this information alone doesn't provide enough information to deduce the operations $ and # or their impact on the value of the expression 1 $ 1 # 1. Thus, statement (2) alone is not sufficient.
Combining both statements: By combining both statements, we have the information that 2 $ 2 # 2 equals 3 and 3 $ 2 # 1 equals 5. However, this still doesn't give us a clear understanding of the specific operations represented by $ and #. Therefore, even when considering both statements together, we cannot determine the value of 1 $ 1 # 1.
As a result, the correct answer is A: Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked.
The restaurant business wastes more energy than any other industry in the United States. Nearly 80 percent of the $10 billion spent on energy by the restaurant industry each year is squandered by the use of inefficient equipment. At the same time, approximately 70 percent of restaurants in the United States are small businesses that are usually too cash poor to invest in energy-efficient technology.Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above- a)The availability of energy-efficient equipment will reduce the energy costs of the restaurant industry by approximately 30 percent.
- b)No industry in the United States spends greater than $10 billion each year on energy.
- c)By using energy-efficient technology, a small restaurant will reduce its expenses by a greater percentage than will a large restaurant.
- d)Approximately $2 billion of the amount spent on energy each year by the restaurant industry is not squandered.
- e)The replacement of inefficient equipment represents the largest potential source of energy savings for the restaurant industry.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
The restaurant business wastes more energy than any other industry in the United States. Nearly 80 percent of the $10 billion spent on energy by the restaurant industry each year is squandered by the use of inefficient equipment. At the same time, approximately 70 percent of restaurants in the United States are small businesses that are usually too cash poor to invest in energy-efficient technology.
Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above
a)
The availability of energy-efficient equipment will reduce the energy costs of the restaurant industry by approximately 30 percent.
b)
No industry in the United States spends greater than $10 billion each year on energy.
c)
By using energy-efficient technology, a small restaurant will reduce its expenses by a greater percentage than will a large restaurant.
d)
Approximately $2 billion of the amount spent on energy each year by the restaurant industry is not squandered.
e)
The replacement of inefficient equipment represents the largest potential source of energy savings for the restaurant industry.
|
Wizius Careers answered |
The passage provides two pieces of statistical information about the restaurant business in the United States. Both pieces of information are framed in terms of percentages. To draw a proper GMAT conclusion, we will need to find an answer choice that is directly in line with the statistical data cited in the passage.
(A) The passage makes no connection between the availability of energy-efficient equipment and a 30 percent reduction in energy costs.
(B) The passage provides no information about the annual energy costs of any industry except the restaurant business. While the passage states that the restaurant business wastes more energy than any other industry in the United States, it makes no claim about the amount spent on energy by the restaurant industry relative to other industries.
(C) The difference in relative energy savings accrued by a small restaurant as compared to that of a large restaurant is not addressed in the passage.
(D) According to the passage, $8 billion (80% of the $10 billion spent on energy each year) is squandered on inefficient equipment. This leaves $2 billion unaccounted for in the passage. This does not necessarily mean that some of this $2 billion is not squandered; it simply means that it is not squandered on inefficient equipment. It might, for example, be squandered on employees who forget to turn off the lights after closing.
(E) Since the waste attributed to the use of inefficient equipment accounts for 80% of the $10 billion spent on energy each year, savings from other sources could account for, at most, 20% of the $10 billion spent. Thus, the replacement of inefficient equipment represents – by far – the largest potential source of energy savings.
Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?- a)Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.
- b)Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.
- c)Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.
- d)Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.
- e)Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Dear Editor: I feel obliged to comment on the unfair review you published last week written by Robert Duxbury. Your readers should know that Mr. Duxbury recently published his own book that covered the same topic as my book, which you asked him to review. It is regrettable that Mr. Duxbury should feel the need to belittle a competing work in the hope of elevating his own book.
The author of the letter above makes her point by employing which method of argument?
a)
Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.
b)
Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review.
c)
Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review.
d)
Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review.
e)
Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
(A) Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review: In the letter, the author accuses Mr. Duxbury of belittling their book in order to promote his own book. By questioning Mr. Duxbury's motives, the author is suggesting that the unfavorable review was biased and unfair. This method of argument attacks the credibility and integrity of the reviewer, rather than focusing on the content of the review itself.
(B) Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review: The author does not directly attack the book written by Mr. Duxbury. Instead, they focus on Mr. Duxbury's motives and actions. While they mention that Mr. Duxbury published a book on the same topic, the letter does not provide any criticism or negative comments about his book.
(C) Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review: Although the author mentions that Mr. Duxbury published a book on the same topic, they do not explicitly compare or contrast their book with his. The letter does not provide any details or arguments about why the author's book is superior or different from Mr. Duxbury's.
(D) Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review: While the author indirectly questions the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review by accusing him of bias, the main focus is on Mr. Duxbury's motives rather than his judgment.
(E) Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work: The letter does not explicitly state that her book should not have been reviewed by Mr. Duxbury or anyone with a competing work. The author's main concern is with Mr. Duxbury's alleged biased motives rather than the reviewer's eligibility.
Given these explanations, it is clear that the method of argument used in the letter is (A) Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50℅ more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.
( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)
What is the role of the sentences in boldface?
- a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the author's conclusion
- b)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
- c)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the author's doubt
- d)The first is a fact supporting the researcher's conclusion while the second is the author's conclusion.
- e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting data
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50℅ more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.
( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)
What is the role of the sentences in boldface?
What is the role of the sentences in boldface?
a)
The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the author's conclusion
b)
The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
c)
The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the author's doubt
d)
The first is a fact supporting the researcher's conclusion while the second is the author's conclusion.
e)
The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting data
|
|
Moumita Sen answered |
Explanation:
Role of the sentences in boldface:
- The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against
- The second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
In this argument, the first boldface sentence presents an interpretation made by researchers that watching violent TV contributes to aggressive behavior in real life. The author then refutes this interpretation by stating that there is no clear evidence that the programs watched were violent. This sets up a direct contradiction between the researchers' claim and the author's position.
The second boldface sentence provides an alternative explanation for the statistical data presented in the argument. The author suggests that perhaps the children watching specific types of TV programs, like a comedy about incompetent cops, could have influenced their perceptions and behavior, rather than the violent content of the shows. This indicates that the author is presenting a different perspective on the relationship between TV watching and criminal behavior.
Therefore, the role of the sentences in boldface is to highlight the contrast between the researchers' interpretation and the author's alternative explanation for the observed data. The first sentence sets up the researchers' claim, which the author challenges, while the second offers a different perspective on the potential influence of TV programs on children's behavior.
Role of the sentences in boldface:
- The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against
- The second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
In this argument, the first boldface sentence presents an interpretation made by researchers that watching violent TV contributes to aggressive behavior in real life. The author then refutes this interpretation by stating that there is no clear evidence that the programs watched were violent. This sets up a direct contradiction between the researchers' claim and the author's position.
The second boldface sentence provides an alternative explanation for the statistical data presented in the argument. The author suggests that perhaps the children watching specific types of TV programs, like a comedy about incompetent cops, could have influenced their perceptions and behavior, rather than the violent content of the shows. This indicates that the author is presenting a different perspective on the relationship between TV watching and criminal behavior.
Therefore, the role of the sentences in boldface is to highlight the contrast between the researchers' interpretation and the author's alternative explanation for the observed data. The first sentence sets up the researchers' claim, which the author challenges, while the second offers a different perspective on the potential influence of TV programs on children's behavior.
A study of children's television-watching habits by the federal Department of Education found that children aged 7-10 who watched more than 25 hours of television per week performed worse in school than children of the same age who watched fewer than 25 hours of television per week. Therefore, parents of children aged 7-10 should prohibit their children from watching more than 25 hours of television per week.Which of the following, if true, would be best to strengthen the argument above?- a)A separate study, by a renowned graduate school education, found that when parents prohibited their children from watching any television, the children's reading scores increase rapidly and significantly and stayed high indefinitely.
- b)Children who watched more than 25 hours of television per week also performed worse on measures of physical fitness than children who watched fewer than 25 hours per week.
- c)The television shows that children aged 7-10 are most likely to watch are saturated with advertisements for products, such as toys and candy, of little educational value.
- d)The Department of Education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
A study of children's television-watching habits by the federal Department of Education found that children aged 7-10 who watched more than 25 hours of television per week performed worse in school than children of the same age who watched fewer than 25 hours of television per week. Therefore, parents of children aged 7-10 should prohibit their children from watching more than 25 hours of television per week.
Which of the following, if true, would be best to strengthen the argument above?
a)
A separate study, by a renowned graduate school education, found that when parents prohibited their children from watching any television, the children's reading scores increase rapidly and significantly and stayed high indefinitely.
b)
Children who watched more than 25 hours of television per week also performed worse on measures of physical fitness than children who watched fewer than 25 hours per week.
c)
The television shows that children aged 7-10 are most likely to watch are saturated with advertisements for products, such as toys and candy, of little educational value.
d)
The Department of Education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.
|
|
Ankita Chauhan answered |
Importance of Appropriate Weight to Children of Different Backgrounds
Children from different backgrounds may have varying levels of access to educational resources outside of school, such as tutoring or enrichment programs. Therefore, it is crucial for the Department of Education study to give appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide. This ensures that the findings are applicable and relevant to a diverse population of children, strengthening the argument for limiting television-watching habits.
Explanation of Answer Choice D
Option D directly addresses the importance of considering children from diverse backgrounds in the study conducted by the Department of Education. By giving appropriate weight to children of different backgrounds, the study can accurately reflect the impact of excessive television-watching on the academic performance of children aged 7-10. This strengthens the argument that parents should prohibit their children from watching more than 25 hours of television per week, as the study's findings are more likely to be valid across various demographics. Therefore, option D is the best choice to strengthen the argument presented in the passage.
For any integer P greater than 1, P! denotes the product of all integers from 1 to P, inclusive. A number is chosen at random from the list of factors of 8!. What is the probability that the chosen number is a multiple of 28?- a)0
- b)1/16
- c)3/8
- d)7/16
- e)7/8
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
For any integer P greater than 1, P! denotes the product of all integers from 1 to P, inclusive. A number is chosen at random from the list of factors of 8!. What is the probability that the chosen number is a multiple of 28?
a)
0
b)
1/16
c)
3/8
d)
7/16
e)
7/8
|
|
Talent Skill Learning answered |
8! = 27∗32∗5∗7
Any factor of 8! can be written as 2a∗3b∗5c∗7d , where a, b, c and d are integers
a can take 8 values (0 to7)
b can take 3 values (0 to 2)
c can take 2 values (0 to 1)
d can take 2 values (0 to 1)
Any factor of 8! can be written as 2a∗3b∗5c∗7d , where a, b, c and d are integers
a can take 8 values (0 to7)
b can take 3 values (0 to 2)
c can take 2 values (0 to 1)
d can take 2 values (0 to 1)
Number of factors = 8*3*2*2
If the factor of 8! is multiple of 28, in that case-
a can take 6 values (2 to 7)
b can take 3 values (0 to 2)
c can take 2 values (0 to 1)
d can take 1 value (only 1)
a can take 6 values (2 to 7)
b can take 3 values (0 to 2)
c can take 2 values (0 to 1)
d can take 1 value (only 1)
Number of multiples of 28 = 6*3*2*1
Parents of high school students argue that poor attendance is the result of poor motivation. If students' attitudes improve, regular attendance will result. The administration, they believe, should concentrate less on making stricter attendance policies and more increasing students' learning.Which of the following, if true, would most effectively weaken the parents' argument?- a)Motivation to learn can be improved at home, during time spent with parents.
- b)The degree of interest in learning that a student develops is a direct result of the amount of time he or she spends in the classroom.
- c)Showing a student how to be motivated is insufficient; the students must also accept responsibility for his or her decisions.
- d)Unmotivated students do not perform as well in school as other students.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Parents of high school students argue that poor attendance is the result of poor motivation. If students' attitudes improve, regular attendance will result. The administration, they believe, should concentrate less on making stricter attendance policies and more increasing students' learning.
Which of the following, if true, would most effectively weaken the parents' argument?
a)
Motivation to learn can be improved at home, during time spent with parents.
b)
The degree of interest in learning that a student develops is a direct result of the amount of time he or she spends in the classroom.
c)
Showing a student how to be motivated is insufficient; the students must also accept responsibility for his or her decisions.
d)
Unmotivated students do not perform as well in school as other students.
|
|
Pallavi Choudhury answered |
(B) posits that the author has confused a cause with an effect-that bad attendance causes bad motivation. That's reversal of causality, one of the classic weakeners. (B) is the correct answer. (A) suggests that parents can be vital to the development of motivation, but this has no direct link to attendance, so it doesn't weaken the argument. (C) is a 180. It agrees with the parents' position that a stricter policy will not lead to increased learning, the very position you are asked to weaken, so it doesn't have any effect; the parents aren't looking for the school to tighten attendance policies, so finding out that such tightening won't increase their motivation does nothing to the parents' argument. (D) introduces the idea of accepting responsibility, which sounds like a good thing overall but has no direct bearing on improving attendance. Finally, (E) mentions that unmotivated students have poorer performance, but the parents are only interested in ways to get students to improve their attendance, not their performance in school. Choice (B) is correct.
Industrial and automobile pollution have long been thought to contribute to global warming. However, researchers have identified that the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide released into the atmosphere are not as potent as the methane emitted by cud-chewing animals such as cows when they fart or belch. Therefore, if you drive a hybrid electric car to the grocery, any favor that you would do to the environment would be offset if you end up buying beef.Which of the following best describes the author's reasoning?- a)The author establishes a point by drawing an analogy
- b)The author disproves a popular notion by providing evidence that is contrary to it
- c)The author presents a new theory in response to an existing well-established theory
- d)The author uses an illustration to support a new school of thought that is contrary to a popular school of thought
- e)The author makes a comparison between two theories by providing an example
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Industrial and automobile pollution have long been thought to contribute to global warming. However, researchers have identified that the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide released into the atmosphere are not as potent as the methane emitted by cud-chewing animals such as cows when they fart or belch. Therefore, if you drive a hybrid electric car to the grocery, any favor that you would do to the environment would be offset if you end up buying beef.
Which of the following best describes the author's reasoning?
a)
The author establishes a point by drawing an analogy
b)
The author disproves a popular notion by providing evidence that is contrary to it
c)
The author presents a new theory in response to an existing well-established theory
d)
The author uses an illustration to support a new school of thought that is contrary to a popular school of thought
e)
The author makes a comparison between two theories by providing an example
|
|
Soumya Iyer answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The argument discusses the various factors that cause global warming. The author refutes the popular belief that industrial and automobile pollution are the primary factors and presents an alternative theory that cattle belching has a greater impact. Although not explicitly stated, the author implies that cattle farming is a contributor by stating that beef consumption contributes to global warming. The correct answer must capture this reasoning used by the author.
The argument discusses the various factors that cause global warming. The author refutes the popular belief that industrial and automobile pollution are the primary factors and presents an alternative theory that cattle belching has a greater impact. Although not explicitly stated, the author implies that cattle farming is a contributor by stating that beef consumption contributes to global warming. The correct answer must capture this reasoning used by the author.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
An analogy is a comparison. For the author to draw an analogy, he should be saying that what happened in the case of X is true again in the case of Y. However, the author does not make any such comparison and option (A) can be eliminated.
The author has presented a counter theory made by some researchers. The author has also presented a hypothetical scenario explaining the counter theory. However, at no point has the author provided any “evidence”. An evidence has to be some kind of data or irrefutable fact used by the author. Since the argument presents no evidence, option (B) can be eliminated.
While the author does present a theory that is contrary to another, the theory presented is not the author’s own but that of the researchers. The option that correctly describes the author’s reasoning must take into account the last statement of the argument, which is the primary statement that presents the author’s perspective. However, option (C) fails to capture this.
The example provided by the author is not done with the objective of comparing two theories but with the objective of justifying one. Option (E) can be eliminated.
The author is providing an illustration of the new theory in an effort to counter the long-established one. Choice (D) is an apt description of the argument.
Option D is the correct answer.
An analogy is a comparison. For the author to draw an analogy, he should be saying that what happened in the case of X is true again in the case of Y. However, the author does not make any such comparison and option (A) can be eliminated.
The author has presented a counter theory made by some researchers. The author has also presented a hypothetical scenario explaining the counter theory. However, at no point has the author provided any “evidence”. An evidence has to be some kind of data or irrefutable fact used by the author. Since the argument presents no evidence, option (B) can be eliminated.
While the author does present a theory that is contrary to another, the theory presented is not the author’s own but that of the researchers. The option that correctly describes the author’s reasoning must take into account the last statement of the argument, which is the primary statement that presents the author’s perspective. However, option (C) fails to capture this.
The example provided by the author is not done with the objective of comparing two theories but with the objective of justifying one. Option (E) can be eliminated.
The author is providing an illustration of the new theory in an effort to counter the long-established one. Choice (D) is an apt description of the argument.
Option D is the correct answer.
In 2009, there was a sharp increase in the number of people who were reported to have died in the country during the first week of the year, compared with the first week of the previous ten years. There seems to be no reason to explain this disproportionately high number of deaths especially because the reports were widespread in the country and there was no epidemic spreading through the country at that point in time. Moreover, most of the deaths were not among the young and could not even be attributed to binge drinking in celebration of the new year.Which of the following can then explain the discrepancy?- a)The government announced in 2008 that estate taxes, payable by the heirs on someone's death, would be abolished effective from the new year.
- b)Astrologists predicted that 2009 was a good year to die in, for salvation of the soul.
- c)The statistic is an anomaly that has no logical explanation.
- d)The price of some cancer drugs and chemotherapy increased by 10% in January 2009, making treatment more expensive than before.
- e)An earthquake in one of the cities during December 2008 made hospital care availability more difficult for regular illnesses.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
In 2009, there was a sharp increase in the number of people who were reported to have died in the country during the first week of the year, compared with the first week of the previous ten years. There seems to be no reason to explain this disproportionately high number of deaths especially because the reports were widespread in the country and there was no epidemic spreading through the country at that point in time. Moreover, most of the deaths were not among the young and could not even be attributed to binge drinking in celebration of the new year.
Which of the following can then explain the discrepancy?
a)
The government announced in 2008 that estate taxes, payable by the heirs on someone's death, would be abolished effective from the new year.
b)
Astrologists predicted that 2009 was a good year to die in, for salvation of the soul.
c)
The statistic is an anomaly that has no logical explanation.
d)
The price of some cancer drugs and chemotherapy increased by 10% in January 2009, making treatment more expensive than before.
e)
An earthquake in one of the cities during December 2008 made hospital care availability more difficult for regular illnesses.
|
|
Disha Mehta answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
For no apparent reason, there seems to have been an increase in the number of reported deaths in the first few weeks of 2009. The argument eliminates some likely reasons, such as spreading epidemics. The correct option must explain the reason for the abnormal number of reported deaths.
For no apparent reason, there seems to have been an increase in the number of reported deaths in the first few weeks of 2009. The argument eliminates some likely reasons, such as spreading epidemics. The correct option must explain the reason for the abnormal number of reported deaths.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (B) does not seems to imply that people voluntarily died to satisfy the astrological predictions. Even if we were to accept that to be true, it does not explain why there was an increase in people dying right after the year begins. If the entire year is a good year to die in, why not die in December 2009?
The question asks for an explanation and saying that there is no valid explanation is no good. Option (C) can be eliminated.
Option (D) is an interesting, attractive option. However, the problem with the option is the timeline. If treatment became expensive only that year, why are people dying immediately? Could they not have done something to improve their health or sought other options?
Option (E) discusses only one city while the argument clearly states that this phenomenon was widespread and observed throughout the country. The option therefore, does not justify why the numbers went up in other parts of the country.
To understand why Option (A) works, understand that the argument does NOT state that the number of deaths went up but rather that the REPORTS went up. If option (A) is true and legal heirs do not have to pay any taxes from January 1, 2009, that would explain why the reports of deaths have gone up. Some people could have died in the last few days of 2008 and the heirs could have waited to report it. Also notice that the argument indicates that the reports were primarily about the older population.
Option A is the correct answer.
Option (B) does not seems to imply that people voluntarily died to satisfy the astrological predictions. Even if we were to accept that to be true, it does not explain why there was an increase in people dying right after the year begins. If the entire year is a good year to die in, why not die in December 2009?
The question asks for an explanation and saying that there is no valid explanation is no good. Option (C) can be eliminated.
Option (D) is an interesting, attractive option. However, the problem with the option is the timeline. If treatment became expensive only that year, why are people dying immediately? Could they not have done something to improve their health or sought other options?
Option (E) discusses only one city while the argument clearly states that this phenomenon was widespread and observed throughout the country. The option therefore, does not justify why the numbers went up in other parts of the country.
To understand why Option (A) works, understand that the argument does NOT state that the number of deaths went up but rather that the REPORTS went up. If option (A) is true and legal heirs do not have to pay any taxes from January 1, 2009, that would explain why the reports of deaths have gone up. Some people could have died in the last few days of 2008 and the heirs could have waited to report it. Also notice that the argument indicates that the reports were primarily about the older population.
Option A is the correct answer.
The Americans with disabilities act (ADA) was designed to ensure that there is no discrimination against and unfair termination of differently-abled workers in the workplace. However, after the act was introduced, there has been a marked increase in unemployment among the differently-abled.
Which of the following best explains this seeming discrepancy?
- a)A number of differently-abled people chose not to work
- b)Not willing to deal with the issues of workplace discrimination of the differently-abled, several companies recruited fewer of them in the first place
- c)Knowing that the act was about to be enforced, companies terminated some of the differently-abled while they had a chance
- d)There was no act introduced that would guarantee a job for the differently-abled
- e)The unemployment among the able-bodied has remained consistently high
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
The Americans with disabilities act (ADA) was designed to ensure that there is no discrimination against and unfair termination of differently-abled workers in the workplace. However, after the act was introduced, there has been a marked increase in unemployment among the differently-abled.
Which of the following best explains this seeming discrepancy?
Which of the following best explains this seeming discrepancy?
a)
A number of differently-abled people chose not to work
b)
Not willing to deal with the issues of workplace discrimination of the differently-abled, several companies recruited fewer of them in the first place
c)
Knowing that the act was about to be enforced, companies terminated some of the differently-abled while they had a chance
d)
There was no act introduced that would guarantee a job for the differently-abled
e)
The unemployment among the able-bodied has remained consistently high
|
|
Avantika Dey answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
An Act that was designed to help the differently-abled seems to have had a detrimental effect on their employment levels.
An Act that was designed to help the differently-abled seems to have had a detrimental effect on their employment levels.
This seeming contradiction in the argument has to be removed by adding information that will explain the lower employment levels after the introduction of the Act. The correct option should also accept that the law was designed to help the differently-abled and not question its motives.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) can be eliminated because it does not explain why the differently-abled chose not to work at a time when the government is making things easier for them to work.
Option (C) can be eliminated because the option seems to imply that the Act tried to prevent the termination of the employment of the differently-abled, when the argument does not say so. Also, the option seems to imply that the differently-abled were treated unfairly – implying that the Act is a failure.
Option (D) does not explain why unemployment has increased. There has never been an Act guaranteeing jobs. So why has the unemployment among the differently-abled increased now?
Option (E) is irrelevant to the discussion. The Act and the discussion on unemployment is pertinent only to the differently-abled and the situation faced by the able-bodied has no impact on this scenario.
Option (B) resolves the paradox by explaining why the unemployment among the differently-abled has increased. Because companies want to avoid future complications (that may be caused by the Act), they have reduced employment.
Option B is the correct answer.
Option (A) can be eliminated because it does not explain why the differently-abled chose not to work at a time when the government is making things easier for them to work.
Option (C) can be eliminated because the option seems to imply that the Act tried to prevent the termination of the employment of the differently-abled, when the argument does not say so. Also, the option seems to imply that the differently-abled were treated unfairly – implying that the Act is a failure.
Option (D) does not explain why unemployment has increased. There has never been an Act guaranteeing jobs. So why has the unemployment among the differently-abled increased now?
Option (E) is irrelevant to the discussion. The Act and the discussion on unemployment is pertinent only to the differently-abled and the situation faced by the able-bodied has no impact on this scenario.
Option (B) resolves the paradox by explaining why the unemployment among the differently-abled has increased. Because companies want to avoid future complications (that may be caused by the Act), they have reduced employment.
Option B is the correct answer.
40 men and 20 women together can complete a work in 12 days and ratio of efficiency of a man to a woman is 2:3, find how many men are required to complete half of the work in 7 days?- a)70
- b)35
- c)30
- d)60
- e)45
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
40 men and 20 women together can complete a work in 12 days and ratio of efficiency of a man to a woman is 2:3, find how many men are required to complete half of the work in 7 days?
a)
70
b)
35
c)
30
d)
60
e)
45
|
|
Chirag Sen answered |
Understanding the Problem
To solve the problem, first, we need to understand the total work done by 40 men and 20 women in 12 days.
Calculating Total Work
- Let the efficiency of a man be 2 units and a woman be 3 units.
- Total efficiency of 40 men = 40 * 2 = 80 units.
- Total efficiency of 20 women = 20 * 3 = 60 units.
- Combined efficiency = 80 + 60 = 140 units per day.
Now, the total work done in 12 days:
- Total work = Efficiency × Time = 140 units/day × 12 days = 1680 units.
Half of the Work
- Since we need to find out how many men are required to complete half of the work in 7 days:
- Half of the work = 1680 units / 2 = 840 units.
Setting Up the Equation
Let the number of men required be \( x \).
- Efficiency of \( x \) men = \( 2x \) units.
- Total work done by \( x \) men in 7 days = \( 7 × 2x = 14x \).
Set the equation for half the work:
- \( 14x = 840 \)
Solving for \( x \)
- \( x = 840 / 14 = 60 \).
Conclusion
Thus, **60 men** are required to complete half of the work in 7 days. Therefore, the correct answer is option **D**.
To solve the problem, first, we need to understand the total work done by 40 men and 20 women in 12 days.
Calculating Total Work
- Let the efficiency of a man be 2 units and a woman be 3 units.
- Total efficiency of 40 men = 40 * 2 = 80 units.
- Total efficiency of 20 women = 20 * 3 = 60 units.
- Combined efficiency = 80 + 60 = 140 units per day.
Now, the total work done in 12 days:
- Total work = Efficiency × Time = 140 units/day × 12 days = 1680 units.
Half of the Work
- Since we need to find out how many men are required to complete half of the work in 7 days:
- Half of the work = 1680 units / 2 = 840 units.
Setting Up the Equation
Let the number of men required be \( x \).
- Efficiency of \( x \) men = \( 2x \) units.
- Total work done by \( x \) men in 7 days = \( 7 × 2x = 14x \).
Set the equation for half the work:
- \( 14x = 840 \)
Solving for \( x \)
- \( x = 840 / 14 = 60 \).
Conclusion
Thus, **60 men** are required to complete half of the work in 7 days. Therefore, the correct answer is option **D**.
Find the numbers of ways in which 4 boys and 4 girls can be seated in a row of 8 seats if they sit alternately and if there is a boy named John and a girl named Susan amongst this group who cannot be put in adjacent seats ?- a)1152
- b)1025
- c)975
- d)648
- e)425
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Find the numbers of ways in which 4 boys and 4 girls can be seated in a row of 8 seats if they sit alternately and if there is a boy named John and a girl named Susan amongst this group who cannot be put in adjacent seats ?
a)
1152
b)
1025
c)
975
d)
648
e)
425
|
|
EduRev GMAT answered |
Total Arrangements of 4 boys and 4 girls can be calculated in these two ways
Case 1: BGBGBGBG i.e. total ways = 4!*4! = 24*24 = 576
Case 2: GBGBGBGB i.e. total ways = 4!*4! = 24*24 = 576
Total ways = 576+576 = 1152
Unfavorable ways = cases in which John and Susan are together = 14*3!*3! = 504 (here number 14 comes as pairs of BG or GB who are John and Susan and remaining 3!*3! are ways in which remaining 3 boys can sit alternately and 3 girls can sit alternately)
Favorable cases = 1152 - 504 = 648
Answer: Option D
Case 1: BGBGBGBG i.e. total ways = 4!*4! = 24*24 = 576
Case 2: GBGBGBGB i.e. total ways = 4!*4! = 24*24 = 576
Total ways = 576+576 = 1152
Unfavorable ways = cases in which John and Susan are together = 14*3!*3! = 504 (here number 14 comes as pairs of BG or GB who are John and Susan and remaining 3!*3! are ways in which remaining 3 boys can sit alternately and 3 girls can sit alternately)
Favorable cases = 1152 - 504 = 648
Answer: Option D
In the fraction x/y, where x and y are positive integers, what is the value of y ?
(1) The least common denominator of x/y and 1/3 is 6.
(2) x = 1- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
In the fraction x/y, where x and y are positive integers, what is the value of y ?
(1) The least common denominator of x/y and 1/3 is 6.
(2) x = 1
(1) The least common denominator of x/y and 1/3 is 6.
(2) x = 1
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
Statement (1): The least common denominator of x/y and 1/3 is 6.
This statement provides information about the least common denominator of x/y and 1/3. However, it doesn't give any specific details about the values of x or y. Without knowing the value of x or any relationship between x and y, we cannot determine the value of y based on this statement alone.
This statement provides information about the least common denominator of x/y and 1/3. However, it doesn't give any specific details about the values of x or y. Without knowing the value of x or any relationship between x and y, we cannot determine the value of y based on this statement alone.
Statement (2): x = 1
This statement tells us the value of x, which is 1. However, it doesn't provide any information about y or the relationship between x and y. Without any information about y, we cannot determine its value based on this statement alone.
This statement tells us the value of x, which is 1. However, it doesn't provide any information about y or the relationship between x and y. Without any information about y, we cannot determine its value based on this statement alone.
Combining both statements:
By considering both statements together, we know that the least common denominator of x/y and 1/3 is 6, and x is equal to 1. However, even with this combined information, we still don't have any direct information about the value of y. The relationship between x and y is still unknown, preventing us from determining the specific value of y.
By considering both statements together, we know that the least common denominator of x/y and 1/3 is 6, and x is equal to 1. However, even with this combined information, we still don't have any direct information about the value of y. The relationship between x and y is still unknown, preventing us from determining the specific value of y.
Therefore, when considering both statements together, we still cannot determine the value of y. Thus, the correct answer is E: Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed.
The average price of an antique car increases over the years. If from 1990 to 1996, the price of the car increased by 13% and from 1996 to 2001 it increased by 20%, what is the price of the car in 2001 if the price in 1990 was $11,500?- a)$15,594
- b)$15,322
- c)$14,786
- d)$14,543
- e)$12,988
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
The average price of an antique car increases over the years. If from 1990 to 1996, the price of the car increased by 13% and from 1996 to 2001 it increased by 20%, what is the price of the car in 2001 if the price in 1990 was $11,500?
a)
$15,594
b)
$15,322
c)
$14,786
d)
$14,543
e)
$12,988
|
|
Gitanjali Kumar answered |
The best answer is A.
The price in 1990 was 11,500. In 1996 the price is (11,500 x 1.13 = 12,995).
The price we are looking for, in 2002, is (12,995 x 1.2 = $15,594).
The price in 1990 was 11,500. In 1996 the price is (11,500 x 1.13 = 12,995).
The price we are looking for, in 2002, is (12,995 x 1.2 = $15,594).
Artistic success as an actor is directly dependent on how well an actor has developed his craft. This has been demonstrated by the discovery of a positive relationship between the number of classes taken by an actor and the number of professional productions in which the actor has appeared in the past two years.Each of the following, if true, cast doubt on the author's argument about artistic success for actors EXCEPT:- a)The figures for the number of classes taken were based solely on information provided by actors.
- b)Success as an actor cannot necessarily be judged exclusively by recent credits.
- c)For most successful actors, it's not the quantity but the quality of their classes that has helped to develop their craft.
- d)There is no relationship between the number of professional productions in which an actor has appeared and true artistic success.
- e)Most successful actors have taken only a small number of intensive classes.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Artistic success as an actor is directly dependent on how well an actor has developed his craft. This has been demonstrated by the discovery of a positive relationship between the number of classes taken by an actor and the number of professional productions in which the actor has appeared in the past two years.
Each of the following, if true, cast doubt on the author's argument about artistic success for actors EXCEPT:
a)
The figures for the number of classes taken were based solely on information provided by actors.
b)
Success as an actor cannot necessarily be judged exclusively by recent credits.
c)
For most successful actors, it's not the quantity but the quality of their classes that has helped to develop their craft.
d)
There is no relationship between the number of professional productions in which an actor has appeared and true artistic success.
e)
Most successful actors have taken only a small number of intensive classes.
|
|
Nandita Chauhan answered |
First, examine the choices looking for answers that sever the link between taking a large number of Classes and having a well-developed craft. (C) effectively attacks this assumption by suggesting that the sheer number of classes is not enough to guarantee developed craft. (E) points out that an actor can achieve success even if he takes only a few classes. Both of these choices can be eliminated. Next, examine the choices seeking answers that sever the link between professional productions and artistic success. (B) suggests that success is determined by more than an actor's resume and (D) destroys the relationship explicitly. This leaves (A), which has no effect on the author's argument because it doesn't matter who provides the figures on the number of classes taken. Choice (A) is the correct answer.
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB hepatitis. Although the new screening tests are estimated to disqualify up to 5 percent of all prospective blood donors, they will still miss two-thirds of donors carrying NANB hepatitis. Therefore, about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood.Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new tests is best supported by the passage above?- a)The incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis is likely to go up by 10 percent.
- b)Donations made by patients specifically for their own use are likely to become less frequent.
- c)The demand for blood from blood banks is likely to fluctuate more strongly.
- d)The blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to go down.
- e)The number of prospective first-time donors is likely to go up by 5 percent.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB hepatitis. Although the new screening tests are estimated to disqualify up to 5 percent of all prospective blood donors, they will still miss two-thirds of donors carrying NANB hepatitis. Therefore, about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood.
Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new tests is best supported by the passage above?
a)
The incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis is likely to go up by 10 percent.
b)
Donations made by patients specifically for their own use are likely to become less frequent.
c)
The demand for blood from blood banks is likely to fluctuate more strongly.
d)
The blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to go down.
e)
The number of prospective first-time donors is likely to go up by 5 percent.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
The passage states that even with the new screening tests, about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood. This implies that the blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to decrease because a portion of the donors will be disqualified due to the screening tests. Therefore, option (D) is the best-supported inference based on the passage.
Let's briefly examine the other options and explain why they are not as strongly supported:
(A) The incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis is likely to go up by 10 percent.
- There is no information in the passage that suggests an increase in the incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis. The passage only talks about the screening tests and their effectiveness in identifying contaminated blood, not the overall incidence of the disease.
(B) Donations made by patients specifically for their own use are likely to become less frequent.
- The passage does not mention anything about donations made by patients specifically for their own use. It focuses on blood donors and the screening tests used to detect NANB hepatitis.
(C) The demand for blood from blood banks is likely to fluctuate more strongly.
- There is no information in the passage to support the claim that the demand for blood from blood banks will fluctuate more strongly. The passage primarily discusses the screening tests and the potential impact on blood supplies.
(E) The number of prospective first-time donors is likely to go up by 5 percent.
- The passage does not provide any information about an increase in the number of prospective first-time donors. It only mentions that up to 5 percent of all prospective blood donors may be disqualified due to the screening tests.
In summary, option (D) is the best-supported inference based on the passage, as it aligns with the information provided about the potential decrease in blood supplies from blood banks
The sum of the digits of a positive integer N is 23. The remainder when N is divided by 11 is 7. What is the remainder when N is divided by 33?- a)7
- b)13
- c)17
- d)16
- e)29
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
The sum of the digits of a positive integer N is 23. The remainder when N is divided by 11 is 7. What is the remainder when N is divided by 33?
a)
7
b)
13
c)
17
d)
16
e)
29
|
|
EduRev GMAT answered |
N = 11a+7
i.e. Possible values of N may be 18, 29, 30, 41, 52, 63, 74, 85, 96, 107, 118, 129, 140, 151, 162, 173, 184, 195 and so on
11a may be a 3 digit number such as 121, 242, 363, 979
N = 979+7 = 986
9+8+6 = 23 Satisfied!
986 when divided by 33 leaves remainder = 29
Answer: Option E
i.e. Possible values of N may be 18, 29, 30, 41, 52, 63, 74, 85, 96, 107, 118, 129, 140, 151, 162, 173, 184, 195 and so on
11a may be a 3 digit number such as 121, 242, 363, 979
N = 979+7 = 986
9+8+6 = 23 Satisfied!
986 when divided by 33 leaves remainder = 29
Answer: Option E
Dissociative Behavioral Disorder (DBD) is caused by malfunctioning neurons that effectively ‘short-circuit’ specific areas of the human brain that control the individual’s awareness of socially-acceptable behaviors, leading to cognitive dysfunction. In a controlled experiment to see whether following a daily routine impacts DBD patients, the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) found that such individuals were less likely to suffer from episodes of cognitive dysfunction when they followed a stipulated daily routine.Which of the following, if true, would it be most important to take into account in assessing the result?- a)The NIMH is renowned for its accomplishments in the field of mental health research.
- b)Not all the participants in the study had the same daily routine.
- c)A few participants dropped out of the study since it was difficult for them to follow a stipulated routine.
- d)The prescribed medication taken by the participants in the experiment was the same as the medication taken by them prior to the experiment.
- e)Cognitive dysfunction, unlike a few other symptoms of DBD, is treatable if the right medication is prescribed.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Dissociative Behavioral Disorder (DBD) is caused by malfunctioning neurons that effectively ‘short-circuit’ specific areas of the human brain that control the individual’s awareness of socially-acceptable behaviors, leading to cognitive dysfunction. In a controlled experiment to see whether following a daily routine impacts DBD patients, the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) found that such individuals were less likely to suffer from episodes of cognitive dysfunction when they followed a stipulated daily routine.
Which of the following, if true, would it be most important to take into account in assessing the result?
a)
The NIMH is renowned for its accomplishments in the field of mental health research.
b)
Not all the participants in the study had the same daily routine.
c)
A few participants dropped out of the study since it was difficult for them to follow a stipulated routine.
d)
The prescribed medication taken by the participants in the experiment was the same as the medication taken by them prior to the experiment.
e)
Cognitive dysfunction, unlike a few other symptoms of DBD, is treatable if the right medication is prescribed.
|
|
Wizius Careers answered |
It assesses your ability to identify relevant information and evaluate the impact of that information on a given result. Let's analyze each answer choice and determine which one is the most important to consider in assessing the result of the experiment.
(A) The NIMH is renowned for its accomplishments in the field of mental health research.
- This answer choice provides information about the reputation of the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH). While the reputation of the organization is important, it does not directly impact the result of the experiment or the validity of the findings. Therefore, this answer choice is not the most important to consider.
(B) Not all the participants in the study had the same daily routine.
- This answer choice highlights a potential inconsistency or variation in the experiment. If participants were not following the same daily routine, it could introduce confounding variables that may affect the observed outcome. This information is crucial in assessing the result because it raises questions about the reliability and generalizability of the findings. Therefore, this answer choice is important to consider.
(C) A few participants dropped out of the study since it was difficult for them to follow a stipulated routine.
- This answer choice indicates that some participants were unable to adhere to the prescribed daily routine and dropped out of the study. While this information is noteworthy, it does not directly impact the result of the experiment. It may affect the sample size and potential bias in the study, but it does not provide insight into the effect of following a daily routine on DBD patients. Thus, this answer choice is not the most important to consider.
(D) The prescribed medication taken by the participants in the experiment was the same as the medication taken by them prior to the experiment.
- This answer choice is highly relevant to the assessment of the result. If the participants were already taking the same medication prior to the experiment, it suggests that any observed improvement may not be solely due to following a daily routine. The medication could be a confounding variable influencing the outcome. Therefore, this answer choice is important to consider and is the most relevant to evaluating the result.
(E) Cognitive dysfunction, unlike a few other symptoms of DBD, is treatable if the right medication is prescribed.
- While this answer choice provides information about the treatability of cognitive dysfunction in DBD, it does not directly impact the assessment of the experiment's result. The focus of the study is on the impact of following a daily routine, not the treatability of cognitive dysfunction. Hence, this answer choice is not the most important to consider.
In conclusion, the most important factor to consider in assessing the result of the experiment is answer choice (D): The prescribed medication taken by the participants in the experiment was the same as the medication taken by them prior to the experiment.
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
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
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
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
|
|
Prashanth Chawla answered |
Perceived Threat and Consumer Behavior
The argument presented states that when limitations were imposed on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more money. Conversely, when nuclear-arms testing increased, people tended to spend more money. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases people's willingness to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
To evaluate the argument and determine the assumption being made, let's consider the given answer choices:
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.
Let's analyze each option and see which one aligns with the assumption made in the argument:
a) The argument does not make any claims about whether the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years. It focuses on the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior, rather than the overall perception of the threat.
b) The argument does not provide any information about whether most people supported the development of nuclear arms. It is not relevant to the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior.
c) This answer choice aligns with the assumption made in the argument. The argument suggests that the amount of nuclear-arms testing directly affects people's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe. When testing is limited, people save more money, implying a lower perceived threat. When testing increases, people spend more money, suggesting a higher perceived threat.
d) The argument does not provide any information about the individuals who saved the most money when nuclear-arms testing was limited. It is not relevant to the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior.
e) The argument does not provide any information about the availability of consumer goods when nuclear-arms testing increases. It is not relevant to the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior.
Therefore, the correct answer is option c) People's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done. This assumption is essential for the argument because it establishes a causal relationship between the level of nuclear-arms testing and people's willingness to save or spend money.
The argument presented states that when limitations were imposed on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more money. Conversely, when nuclear-arms testing increased, people tended to spend more money. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases people's willingness to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
To evaluate the argument and determine the assumption being made, let's consider the given answer choices:
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.
Let's analyze each option and see which one aligns with the assumption made in the argument:
a) The argument does not make any claims about whether the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years. It focuses on the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior, rather than the overall perception of the threat.
b) The argument does not provide any information about whether most people supported the development of nuclear arms. It is not relevant to the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior.
c) This answer choice aligns with the assumption made in the argument. The argument suggests that the amount of nuclear-arms testing directly affects people's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe. When testing is limited, people save more money, implying a lower perceived threat. When testing increases, people spend more money, suggesting a higher perceived threat.
d) The argument does not provide any information about the individuals who saved the most money when nuclear-arms testing was limited. It is not relevant to the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior.
e) The argument does not provide any information about the availability of consumer goods when nuclear-arms testing increases. It is not relevant to the relationship between nuclear-arms testing and consumer behavior.
Therefore, the correct answer is option c) People's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done. This assumption is essential for the argument because it establishes a causal relationship between the level of nuclear-arms testing and people's willingness to save or spend money.
The value of a “Tin-Rin” stock in the stock market decreased by 15% in the last two years.
The economic experts believe that the value of the stock will increase by 7% during the following year, which will make the value $440. What was the approximate price of the stock two years ago?- a)$473
- b)$464
- c)$455
- d)$445
- e)$430
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
The value of a “Tin-Rin” stock in the stock market decreased by 15% in the last two years.
The economic experts believe that the value of the stock will increase by 7% during the following year, which will make the value $440. What was the approximate price of the stock two years ago?
The economic experts believe that the value of the stock will increase by 7% during the following year, which will make the value $440. What was the approximate price of the stock two years ago?
a)
$473
b)
$464
c)
$455
d)
$445
e)
$430
|
|
Sharmila Singh answered |
Understanding the Problem
The stock value has decreased by 15% over two years and is projected to increase by 7% in the coming year, reaching a value of $440.
Step 1: Calculate the Value Before the Increase
To find the stock value before the expected 7% increase, we set up the equation:
- Let x be the value of the stock before the increase.
- After a 7% increase, the stock becomes:
x + 0.07x = 440
This simplifies to:
1.07x = 440
Now, solve for x:
- x = 440 / 1.07
- x ≈ 410.28
Step 2: Find the Original Value Two Years Ago
The stock decreased by 15% over the last two years, meaning:
- Let y be the original stock price two years ago.
- After a 15% decrease, the stock value is:
y - 0.15y = 0.85y
We know from Step 1:
- 0.85y = 410.28
Now, solve for y:
- y = 410.28 / 0.85
- y ≈ 482.4
Step 3: Conclusion
The calculated original price does not directly match the options given, but considering potential rounding and approximations, we check the closest option:
- The closest approximate price of the stock two years ago is:
Option A: $473
Hence, the answer is option 'A' as it reflects a plausible estimation of the original stock price considering the calculations.
The stock value has decreased by 15% over two years and is projected to increase by 7% in the coming year, reaching a value of $440.
Step 1: Calculate the Value Before the Increase
To find the stock value before the expected 7% increase, we set up the equation:
- Let x be the value of the stock before the increase.
- After a 7% increase, the stock becomes:
x + 0.07x = 440
This simplifies to:
1.07x = 440
Now, solve for x:
- x = 440 / 1.07
- x ≈ 410.28
Step 2: Find the Original Value Two Years Ago
The stock decreased by 15% over the last two years, meaning:
- Let y be the original stock price two years ago.
- After a 15% decrease, the stock value is:
y - 0.15y = 0.85y
We know from Step 1:
- 0.85y = 410.28
Now, solve for y:
- y = 410.28 / 0.85
- y ≈ 482.4
Step 3: Conclusion
The calculated original price does not directly match the options given, but considering potential rounding and approximations, we check the closest option:
- The closest approximate price of the stock two years ago is:
Option A: $473
Hence, the answer is option 'A' as it reflects a plausible estimation of the original stock price considering the calculations.
Terrorist attacks invariably lead to tremendous losses in life, property, and morale of a country. The effects of a terrorist attack are not just immediate and can have long-lasting, trickle-down effects as well. The fear, for example, takes a long time to die down. However, some of these repercussions can be beneficial to the country. Take for instance, the recent terrorist attack on our capital city. In the weeks following the attack, the crime rate in the city came down significantly from what it was just before the attack. This must primarily be due to the increased presence of police resources that were moved to the area and is thus an indirect effect of the attack.Which of the following options gives one more option as to why the crime rate decreased because of the terrorist attacks?- a)The capital city is under increased monitoring leading to quick detection of crimes - many times while the crime is still underway.
- b)A number of people are frightened because of the terrorist attacks and have fled the capital city.
- c)There was a recorded decrease in crime rate right after the terrorist attack in almost all cities of the country.
- d)Intel reports show that the terrorists who pulled off the attack had been committing various other smaller crimes regularly to distract law enforcement from their true purposes.
- e)The government had initiated schemes to decrease poverty and provide better livelihood for the people just before the terrorist attack.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Terrorist attacks invariably lead to tremendous losses in life, property, and morale of a country. The effects of a terrorist attack are not just immediate and can have long-lasting, trickle-down effects as well. The fear, for example, takes a long time to die down. However, some of these repercussions can be beneficial to the country. Take for instance, the recent terrorist attack on our capital city. In the weeks following the attack, the crime rate in the city came down significantly from what it was just before the attack. This must primarily be due to the increased presence of police resources that were moved to the area and is thus an indirect effect of the attack.
Which of the following options gives one more option as to why the crime rate decreased because of the terrorist attacks?
a)
The capital city is under increased monitoring leading to quick detection of crimes - many times while the crime is still underway.
b)
A number of people are frightened because of the terrorist attacks and have fled the capital city.
c)
There was a recorded decrease in crime rate right after the terrorist attack in almost all cities of the country.
d)
Intel reports show that the terrorists who pulled off the attack had been committing various other smaller crimes regularly to distract law enforcement from their true purposes.
e)
The government had initiated schemes to decrease poverty and provide better livelihood for the people just before the terrorist attack.
|
|
Snehal Banerjee answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The argument claims that there can be some benefits to terrorist attacks, such as the decrease in crime rates. The author argues that the crime rate was influenced by the recent terrorist attack.
The argument claims that there can be some benefits to terrorist attacks, such as the decrease in crime rates. The author argues that the crime rate was influenced by the recent terrorist attack.
In order to further add credibility to the author’s argument, the correct option must establish that the terrorist attack had some tie to the crime rate in the city.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) repeats a fact that is mentioned in the argument – that there is an increase in policing. However, instead of saying that the increase in police forces is dissuading the criminals, the options states that they are getting caught red-handed. This option does not imply that the crime rate has come down – only that the criminals are being increasingly caught.
Option (B) extends a remark made in the argument about people feeling fear. However, what does this discussion have to do with the crime rate? The option makes no mention of the impact that the fleeing had on the crime rate.
Option (C) states that the crime rate has come down. However, this decrease in crime rate need not have anything to do with the terrorist attacks. The option does nothing to establish this link.
There need not necessarily be a link between crime and poverty. Even if that were the case, Option (E) would weaken the argument and not strengthen it. If the government had been taking measures to bring down the crime rate, then the crime rate has not come down because of the terrorist attack.
Option (D) implies that the terrorists had been contributing to the crime rate. This implies that, now that they have implemented their plan, they are no longer committing petty crimes to distract the police and that the crime rate has come down. Ultimately, the option strengthens the argument by establishing a link between the crime rate and the terrorist attacks.
Option D is the correct answer.
Option (A) repeats a fact that is mentioned in the argument – that there is an increase in policing. However, instead of saying that the increase in police forces is dissuading the criminals, the options states that they are getting caught red-handed. This option does not imply that the crime rate has come down – only that the criminals are being increasingly caught.
Option (B) extends a remark made in the argument about people feeling fear. However, what does this discussion have to do with the crime rate? The option makes no mention of the impact that the fleeing had on the crime rate.
Option (C) states that the crime rate has come down. However, this decrease in crime rate need not have anything to do with the terrorist attacks. The option does nothing to establish this link.
There need not necessarily be a link between crime and poverty. Even if that were the case, Option (E) would weaken the argument and not strengthen it. If the government had been taking measures to bring down the crime rate, then the crime rate has not come down because of the terrorist attack.
Option (D) implies that the terrorists had been contributing to the crime rate. This implies that, now that they have implemented their plan, they are no longer committing petty crimes to distract the police and that the crime rate has come down. Ultimately, the option strengthens the argument by establishing a link between the crime rate and the terrorist attacks.
Option D is the correct answer.
How many 3-digit numbers are possible using permutations with repetition allowed if digits are 1-9?- a)504
- b)1000
- c)729
- d)720
- e)None of these
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
How many 3-digit numbers are possible using permutations with repetition allowed if digits are 1-9?
a)
504
b)
1000
c)
729
d)
720
e)
None of these
|
Aditya Kumar answered |
1-9 digits which means 9 digits are possible. We have to arrange 3 digits at a time out of 9 digits with repetition allowed. So, total permutations are nr = 93 = 729.
A certain car’s price decreased by 2.5% (from the original price) each year from 1996 to 2002, during that time the owner of the car invested in a new carburetor and a new audio system for the car, which increased her price by $1,500. If the price of the car in 1996 was $22,000, what is the car’s price in 2002?- a)$18,400
- b)$19,500
- c)$20,200
- d)$20,400
- e)$21,100
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
A certain car’s price decreased by 2.5% (from the original price) each year from 1996 to 2002, during that time the owner of the car invested in a new carburetor and a new audio system for the car, which increased her price by $1,500. If the price of the car in 1996 was $22,000, what is the car’s price in 2002?
a)
$18,400
b)
$19,500
c)
$20,200
d)
$20,400
e)
$21,100
|
|
Anirban Singh answered |
The best answer is C.
The price of the car decreased by 2.5% every year on a course of 6 years. That means that the price of the car in 2002 is 15% lower than the original + $1500 of new investments.
The new price is ($22,000 x 0.85 = 18,700 + 1500 = $20,200).
The new price is ($22,000 x 0.85 = 18,700 + 1500 = $20,200).
Last year the worldwide paper industry used over twice as much fresh pulp (pulp made directly from raw plant fibers) as recycled pulp (pulp made from wastepaper). A paper industry analyst has projected that by 2010 the industry will use at least as much recycled pulp annually as it does fresh pulp, while using a greater quantity of fresh pulp than it did last year.If the information above is correct and the analyst's projections prove to be accurate, which of the following projections must also be accurate.- a)In 2010 the paper industry will use at least twice as much recycled pulp as it did last year
- b)In 2010 the paper industry will use at least twice as much total pulp as it did last year.
- c)In 2010 the paper industry will produce more paper from a given amount of pulp than it did last year.
- d)As compared with last year, in 2010 the paper industry will make more paper that contains only recycled pulp.
- e)As compared with last year, in 2010 the paper industry will make less paper that contains only fresh pulp.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Last year the worldwide paper industry used over twice as much fresh pulp (pulp made directly from raw plant fibers) as recycled pulp (pulp made from wastepaper). A paper industry analyst has projected that by 2010 the industry will use at least as much recycled pulp annually as it does fresh pulp, while using a greater quantity of fresh pulp than it did last year.
If the information above is correct and the analyst's projections prove to be accurate, which of the following projections must also be accurate.
a)
In 2010 the paper industry will use at least twice as much recycled pulp as it did last year
b)
In 2010 the paper industry will use at least twice as much total pulp as it did last year.
c)
In 2010 the paper industry will produce more paper from a given amount of pulp than it did last year.
d)
As compared with last year, in 2010 the paper industry will make more paper that contains only recycled pulp.
e)
As compared with last year, in 2010 the paper industry will make less paper that contains only fresh pulp.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
Last year, the worldwide paper industry used over twice as much fresh pulp as recycled pulp.
A paper industry analyst has projected that by 2010, the industry will use at least as much recycled pulp annually as it does fresh pulp while using a greater quantity of fresh pulp than it did last year.
We need to determine which of the following projections must also be accurate.
(A) In 2010, the paper industry will use at least twice as much recycled pulp as it did last year.
- The information states that the industry will use at least as much recycled pulp annually as it does fresh pulp. If this is the case, and it also uses a greater quantity of fresh pulp than it did last year, then it is possible for the industry to use at least twice as much recycled pulp as it did last year. Therefore, this projection can be accurate.
(B) In 2010, the paper industry will use at least twice as much total pulp as it did last year.
- The information does not provide any specific indication about the total pulp usage. We only know that the industry will use a greater quantity of fresh pulp than it did last year. Without more information, we cannot conclude that the industry will use at least twice as much total pulp as it did last year. Therefore, this projection cannot be determined from the given information.
(C) In 2010, the paper industry will produce more paper from a given amount of pulp than it did last year.
- The information does not provide any indication of changes in paper production efficiency. It only mentions the relative usage of fresh pulp and recycled pulp. Without additional information, we cannot conclude whether the industry will produce more paper from a given amount of pulp. Therefore, this projection cannot be determined from the given information.
(D) As compared with last year, in 2010, the paper industry will make more paper that contains only recycled pulp.
- The information states that by 2010, the industry will use at least as much recycled pulp annually as it does fresh pulp. This means that the usage of recycled pulp will increase. However, the information does not provide any specific indication about the proportion of recycled pulp in the paper made by the industry. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the industry will make more paper that contains only recycled pulp. Therefore, this projection cannot be determined from the given information.
(E) As compared with last year, in 2010, the paper industry will make less paper that contains only fresh pulp.
- The information states that the industry will use a greater quantity of fresh pulp than it did last year. However, it does not provide any indication of changes in the proportion of fresh pulp in the paper made by the industry. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the industry will make less paper that contains only fresh pulp. Therefore, this projection cannot be determined from the given information.
In conclusion, the only projection that can be determined to be accurate based on the given information is (A) In 2010, the paper industry will use at least twice as much recycled pulp as it did last year.
In an effort to curb drug abuse, the government has imposed strict laws to prosecute the dealers. However, such an initiative is unlikely to be effective. Prosecuting dealers will lead to a shortage of drugs. At the same time, because no efforts are being taken to curb demand, drugs will be sold at a premium, attracting more people to the very remunerative job of drug dealing. Therefore, to effectively reduce drug abuse, the government will have to prosecute the drug users and not dealers.- a)Whether efforts have been successfully taken in any other country to regulate drug users.
- b)Whether the payoff from selling drugs outweighs the severity of the punishment
- c)Whether drugs will continue to be sold at a premium when there are dealers in the market again
- d)Whether the majority of the users will be willing to pay a premium to continue to use the drugs
- e)Whether the government will be able to keep track of new dealers as and when they enter the market
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
In an effort to curb drug abuse, the government has imposed strict laws to prosecute the dealers. However, such an initiative is unlikely to be effective. Prosecuting dealers will lead to a shortage of drugs. At the same time, because no efforts are being taken to curb demand, drugs will be sold at a premium, attracting more people to the very remunerative job of drug dealing. Therefore, to effectively reduce drug abuse, the government will have to prosecute the drug users and not dealers.
a)
Whether efforts have been successfully taken in any other country to regulate drug users.
b)
Whether the payoff from selling drugs outweighs the severity of the punishment
c)
Whether drugs will continue to be sold at a premium when there are dealers in the market again
d)
Whether the majority of the users will be willing to pay a premium to continue to use the drugs
e)
Whether the government will be able to keep track of new dealers as and when they enter the market
|
|
Ananya Iyer answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The author believes that the government should prosecute drug users and not dealers in order to control drug abuse.
The author believes that the government should prosecute drug users and not dealers in order to control drug abuse.
In order to evaluate the argument, the answer option has to evaluate this suggestion made by the author. So, the correct option would be one that determines one or all of the following
whether prosecuting drug users is possible
if possible, then will such a measure be as or more effective than prosecuting drug dealers
whether for some reason, the current steps taken by the government are effective in tackling drug abuse.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) can be eliminated because what worked in other countries need not necessarily work in this one. The answer option has to evaluate whether the recommendation would work in this particular scenario.
Option (B) can be eliminated because if the payoffs are outweighing the punishment, that would mean that there would be more dealers involved in drug dealing. The argument implies that this will already happen so this option does nothing to evaluate the author’s recommendation.
Option (C) does not evaluate whether drug abuse would reduce or increase. What needs to be evaluated is drug usage and not drug dealing. For similar reasons, Option (E) can also be eliminated. Keeping track of new dealers does not necessarily keep track of drug dealing or usage.
Option (D) evaluates the argument because the author’s primary argument against the government’s actions is that the current efforts will not curb drug usage, and that sale of drugs will continue happening at a premium. However, if most drug users do not wish to pay the premium charged, then the sale and usage of drugs will come down and the government’s current measures will prove to be effective enough.
Option D is the correct answer
whether prosecuting drug users is possible
if possible, then will such a measure be as or more effective than prosecuting drug dealers
whether for some reason, the current steps taken by the government are effective in tackling drug abuse.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) can be eliminated because what worked in other countries need not necessarily work in this one. The answer option has to evaluate whether the recommendation would work in this particular scenario.
Option (B) can be eliminated because if the payoffs are outweighing the punishment, that would mean that there would be more dealers involved in drug dealing. The argument implies that this will already happen so this option does nothing to evaluate the author’s recommendation.
Option (C) does not evaluate whether drug abuse would reduce or increase. What needs to be evaluated is drug usage and not drug dealing. For similar reasons, Option (E) can also be eliminated. Keeping track of new dealers does not necessarily keep track of drug dealing or usage.
Option (D) evaluates the argument because the author’s primary argument against the government’s actions is that the current efforts will not curb drug usage, and that sale of drugs will continue happening at a premium. However, if most drug users do not wish to pay the premium charged, then the sale and usage of drugs will come down and the government’s current measures will prove to be effective enough.
Option D is the correct answer
The number of North American children who are obese - that is, who have more body fat than do 85 percent of North American children their age - is steadily increasing, according to four major studies conducted over the past 15 years.If the finding reported above is correct, it can be properly concluded that- a)when four majors studies all produce similar results, those studies must be accurate
- b)North American children have been progressively less physically active over the past 15 years
- c)the number of North American children who are not obese increased over the past 15 years
- d)over the past 15 years, the number of North American children who are underweight has declined
- e)the incidence of obesity in North American children tends to increase as the children grow older
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
The number of North American children who are obese - that is, who have more body fat than do 85 percent of North American children their age - is steadily increasing, according to four major studies conducted over the past 15 years.
If the finding reported above is correct, it can be properly concluded that
a)
when four majors studies all produce similar results, those studies must be accurate
b)
North American children have been progressively less physically active over the past 15 years
c)
the number of North American children who are not obese increased over the past 15 years
d)
over the past 15 years, the number of North American children who are underweight has declined
e)
the incidence of obesity in North American children tends to increase as the children grow older
|
|
Hridoy Gupta answered |
The Conclusion from the Study
The correct answer, option 'C', indicates that the number of North American children who are not obese has increased over the past 15 years. Here’s a detailed explanation:
Understanding Obesity Statistics
- The studies indicate a steady increase in the number of children classified as obese.
- If more children are categorized as obese, it implies that the proportion of children falling below the obesity threshold is decreasing.
Implications of Increasing Obesity Rates
- As obesity rates rise, the number of children who are not obese must decrease relative to the overall population.
- This means that if the obesity rate is increasing, it is likely that fewer children are maintaining a healthy weight.
Relevance of Other Options
- **Option A**: The accuracy of studies cannot be assumed solely based on consistency; methodology and sample size also matter.
- **Option B**: While decreasing physical activity could correlate with increasing obesity, it cannot be conclusively stated from the information given.
- **Option D**: This option implies a direct decline in underweight children, which is not necessarily supported by the data provided on obesity alone.
- **Option E**: The relationship between age and obesity is not directly established by the given studies; thus, it cannot be concluded that incidence increases with age.
Final Thoughts
- Given the evidence and the nature of the statistics, option 'C' reflects the logical conclusion drawn from the reported increase in obesity rates among North American children over the past 15 years.
The correct answer, option 'C', indicates that the number of North American children who are not obese has increased over the past 15 years. Here’s a detailed explanation:
Understanding Obesity Statistics
- The studies indicate a steady increase in the number of children classified as obese.
- If more children are categorized as obese, it implies that the proportion of children falling below the obesity threshold is decreasing.
Implications of Increasing Obesity Rates
- As obesity rates rise, the number of children who are not obese must decrease relative to the overall population.
- This means that if the obesity rate is increasing, it is likely that fewer children are maintaining a healthy weight.
Relevance of Other Options
- **Option A**: The accuracy of studies cannot be assumed solely based on consistency; methodology and sample size also matter.
- **Option B**: While decreasing physical activity could correlate with increasing obesity, it cannot be conclusively stated from the information given.
- **Option D**: This option implies a direct decline in underweight children, which is not necessarily supported by the data provided on obesity alone.
- **Option E**: The relationship between age and obesity is not directly established by the given studies; thus, it cannot be concluded that incidence increases with age.
Final Thoughts
- Given the evidence and the nature of the statistics, option 'C' reflects the logical conclusion drawn from the reported increase in obesity rates among North American children over the past 15 years.
There are several scientific studies and research findings that are constantly discussed and publicized in the news media. Some of these are contrary to other research studies that are published. This conflict in information makes people believe that either science is inaccurate or that they can ‘choose’ which scientific result they want to believe in. However, neither of these beliefs is accurate. Science is not inaccurate or subjective. Most of the time, scientific studies show inconsistent results either because of inaccuracies in methodology adopted or because of misrepresentation of actual results by the news media. For example, a recent study done on just 15 women showed that eating chocolate was not necessarily harmful during pregnancy and the media reported that chocolate was actually beneficial to the foetus.Which of the following best further corroborate the author’s argument?- a)A study result that shows that the effect of automobile pollution on global warming is marginal.
- b)An unverified study gaining popularity because it seemingly showed that red wine reduces the risk of cancer on a very small control group.
- c)A new study that further collaborates an earlier finding that the consumption of some types of berries lower the risk of heart failure.
- d)The news media highlighting the fact that a study had clearly proven that effects of certain drugs on rats need not be the same as on humans.
- e)People not knowing what to believe because one study shows that a certain disease is caused by genetic factors, while another shows that it also caused by lifestyle factors.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
There are several scientific studies and research findings that are constantly discussed and publicized in the news media. Some of these are contrary to other research studies that are published. This conflict in information makes people believe that either science is inaccurate or that they can ‘choose’ which scientific result they want to believe in. However, neither of these beliefs is accurate. Science is not inaccurate or subjective. Most of the time, scientific studies show inconsistent results either because of inaccuracies in methodology adopted or because of misrepresentation of actual results by the news media. For example, a recent study done on just 15 women showed that eating chocolate was not necessarily harmful during pregnancy and the media reported that chocolate was actually beneficial to the foetus.
Which of the following best further corroborate the author’s argument?
a)
A study result that shows that the effect of automobile pollution on global warming is marginal.
b)
An unverified study gaining popularity because it seemingly showed that red wine reduces the risk of cancer on a very small control group.
c)
A new study that further collaborates an earlier finding that the consumption of some types of berries lower the risk of heart failure.
d)
The news media highlighting the fact that a study had clearly proven that effects of certain drugs on rats need not be the same as on humans.
e)
People not knowing what to believe because one study shows that a certain disease is caused by genetic factors, while another shows that it also caused by lifestyle factors.
|
|
Maya Choudhury answered |
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The author believes that scientific studies, when done right, are reliable and that the conflicting studies are the result of misrepresentation of data and inaccurate studies and not the problem with the scientific methodology itself.
The author believes that scientific studies, when done right, are reliable and that the conflicting studies are the result of misrepresentation of data and inaccurate studies and not the problem with the scientific methodology itself.
To further underscore the reasoning, the correct option must establish one more situation in which the methodology adopted in the study is inaccurate and/or the news media misrepresents the actual results of the study.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) presents a study result that has a conclusion that is seemingly wrong. However, there is nothing in the answer option that indicates that the study adopted inaccurate methodology. The answer might seem attractive because the information is contrary to real life information. However, real life information should not be brought into any critical reasoning question. The option can be eliminated.
Option (C) presents a study that further collaborates another study – there is no conflict and no sign of any inaccuracy in this option.
While Option (D) mentions that the news media made a study into a sensation, there is again nothing to indicate that the study was misrepresented or that the study involved incorrect methodology.
Option (E) indicates a seeming conflict in beliefs held by people. Again however, there is nothing to indicate that either of those studies are incorrect. There need not a conflict either, because the disease could be affected by both genetic and lifestyle factors.
Option(B) collaborates the author’s argument the best because it indicates that the study was done on a very small population and that the study, despite being unverified, is becoming popular. This extends the discussion in the argument and is the answer.
Option B is the correct answer.
Option (A) presents a study result that has a conclusion that is seemingly wrong. However, there is nothing in the answer option that indicates that the study adopted inaccurate methodology. The answer might seem attractive because the information is contrary to real life information. However, real life information should not be brought into any critical reasoning question. The option can be eliminated.
Option (C) presents a study that further collaborates another study – there is no conflict and no sign of any inaccuracy in this option.
While Option (D) mentions that the news media made a study into a sensation, there is again nothing to indicate that the study was misrepresented or that the study involved incorrect methodology.
Option (E) indicates a seeming conflict in beliefs held by people. Again however, there is nothing to indicate that either of those studies are incorrect. There need not a conflict either, because the disease could be affected by both genetic and lifestyle factors.
Option(B) collaborates the author’s argument the best because it indicates that the study was done on a very small population and that the study, despite being unverified, is becoming popular. This extends the discussion in the argument and is the answer.
Option B is the correct answer.
If f(x) = x3 + 9, is f(x) positive?(1) x < −1
(2) x > −3- a)Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- b)Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
- c)BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
- d)EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
- e)Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
If f(x) = x3 + 9, is f(x) positive?
(1) x < −1
(2) x > −3
(2) x > −3
a)
Statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
b)
Statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked
c)
BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient
d)
EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked
e)
Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed
|
|
Talent Skill Learning answered |
Statement (1): x < −1
This statement tells us that x is less than -1. However, it doesn't provide enough information to determine the sign of f(x). For example, if x = -2, then f(x) = (-2)3 + 9 = -8 + 9 = 1, which is positive. On the other hand, if x = -10, then f(x) = (-10)3 + 9 = -1000 + 9 = -991, which is negative. Therefore, statement (1) alone is not sufficient to determine if f(x) is positive.
This statement tells us that x is less than -1. However, it doesn't provide enough information to determine the sign of f(x). For example, if x = -2, then f(x) = (-2)3 + 9 = -8 + 9 = 1, which is positive. On the other hand, if x = -10, then f(x) = (-10)3 + 9 = -1000 + 9 = -991, which is negative. Therefore, statement (1) alone is not sufficient to determine if f(x) is positive.
Statement (2): x > −3
This statement tells us that x is greater than -3. Similar to statement (1), it doesn't provide enough information to determine the sign of f(x) on its own. For example, if x = 0, then f(x) = 03 + 9 = 9, which is positive. However, if x = -2, then f(x) = (-2)3 + 9 = -8 + 9 = 1, which is also positive. Therefore, statement (2) alone is not sufficient to determine if f(x) is positive.
This statement tells us that x is greater than -3. Similar to statement (1), it doesn't provide enough information to determine the sign of f(x) on its own. For example, if x = 0, then f(x) = 03 + 9 = 9, which is positive. However, if x = -2, then f(x) = (-2)3 + 9 = -8 + 9 = 1, which is also positive. Therefore, statement (2) alone is not sufficient to determine if f(x) is positive.
By considering both statements together, we have x < -1 and x > -3. This means that x lies between -3 and -1, exclusive. However, knowing this range is still not enough to determine the sign of f(x). For example, if x = -2.5, then f(x) = (-2.5)3 + 9 = -15.625 + 9 = -6.625, which is negative. On the other hand, if x = -2.9, then f(x) = (-2.9)3 + 9 = -24.389 + 9 = -15.389, which is also negative. Therefore, even when considering both statements together, we cannot determine if f(x) is positive.
As a result, statements (1) and (2) together are not sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data is needed. The correct answer is E: Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data are needed.
Diana is going on a school trip along with her two brothers, Bruce and Clerk. The students are to be randomly assigned into 3 groups, with each group leaving at a different time. What is the probability that DIana leaves at the same time as AT LEAST on her bothers?- a)1/27
- b)4/27
- c)5/27
- d)4/9
- e)5/9
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Diana is going on a school trip along with her two brothers, Bruce and Clerk. The students are to be randomly assigned into 3 groups, with each group leaving at a different time. What is the probability that DIana leaves at the same time as AT LEAST on her bothers?
a)
1/27
b)
4/27
c)
5/27
d)
4/9
e)
5/9
|
|
EduRev GMAT answered |
Diana and her two brothers can be assigned to one of the 3 groups, so each has 3 choices, so total # of different assignments of Diana and her 2 brothers to 3 groups is 3∗3∗3 = 3 = 27.
Now, "Diana leaves at the same time as AT LEAST one her brothers" means that Diana is in the same group as at least one her brothers.
Let's find the opposite probability of such event and subtract it from 1. Opposite probability would be the probability that Diana is not in the group with any of her brothers.
In how many ways we can assign Diana and her two brothers to 3 groups so that Diana is not in the group with any of her brothers? If Diana is in the first group, then each of her two brothers will have 2 choices (either the second group or the third) and thus can be assigned in 2 ∗ 2 = 22 = 4 ways to other two groups. As there are 3 groups, then total # of ways to assign Diana and her 2 brothers to these groups so that Diana is not in the group with any her bothers is 3 ∗ 4 = 12 (For each of Diana's choices her brother can be assigned in 4 ways, as Diana has 3 choices: first, second or the third group, then total 3 ∗ 4 = 12). So probability of this event is 12/27.
Probability that Diana is in the same group as at least one her brothers would be
Answer: E.
Now, "Diana leaves at the same time as AT LEAST one her brothers" means that Diana is in the same group as at least one her brothers.
Let's find the opposite probability of such event and subtract it from 1. Opposite probability would be the probability that Diana is not in the group with any of her brothers.
In how many ways we can assign Diana and her two brothers to 3 groups so that Diana is not in the group with any of her brothers? If Diana is in the first group, then each of her two brothers will have 2 choices (either the second group or the third) and thus can be assigned in 2 ∗ 2 = 22 = 4 ways to other two groups. As there are 3 groups, then total # of ways to assign Diana and her 2 brothers to these groups so that Diana is not in the group with any her bothers is 3 ∗ 4 = 12 (For each of Diana's choices her brother can be assigned in 4 ways, as Diana has 3 choices: first, second or the third group, then total 3 ∗ 4 = 12). So probability of this event is 12/27.
Probability that Diana is in the same group as at least one her brothers would be
Answer: E.
Alan: In the last 15 years, most of the criminals who were convicted of theft or murder were from the lower income classes and had not completed high school. Therefore, the government has to spend more money on reducing poverty and increase funding to education. Because terrorism is the most severe of all crimes, such measures would bring down overall crime rate and reduce threat from terrorism.
Dylan: A study that was conducted in a country known to produce a number of terrorists showed that on average the terrorists were better educated than the overall population and that they did not necessarily come from lower income classes. This is probably because crimes such as theft are committed for personal gain while terrorism is for political or religious gain.
Which of the following best describes Dylan's response to Alan?
- a)Dylan changes the direction of the argument entirely by discussing the scenario in a different country
- b)Dylan partially agrees with Alan's reasoning but refutes his recommendation to the government
- c)Dylan converts a causal argument made by Alan into a generalization applicable universally
- d)Dylan challenges Alan's reasoning by explaining why two situations that Alan perceives as similar are not
- e)While Alan arrives at a conclusion by drawing an analogy, Dylan arrives at the same conclusion by refuting the analogy
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Alan: In the last 15 years, most of the criminals who were convicted of theft or murder were from the lower income classes and had not completed high school. Therefore, the government has to spend more money on reducing poverty and increase funding to education. Because terrorism is the most severe of all crimes, such measures would bring down overall crime rate and reduce threat from terrorism.
Dylan: A study that was conducted in a country known to produce a number of terrorists showed that on average the terrorists were better educated than the overall population and that they did not necessarily come from lower income classes. This is probably because crimes such as theft are committed for personal gain while terrorism is for political or religious gain.
Which of the following best describes Dylan's response to Alan?
Which of the following best describes Dylan's response to Alan?
a)
Dylan changes the direction of the argument entirely by discussing the scenario in a different country
b)
Dylan partially agrees with Alan's reasoning but refutes his recommendation to the government
c)
Dylan converts a causal argument made by Alan into a generalization applicable universally
d)
Dylan challenges Alan's reasoning by explaining why two situations that Alan perceives as similar are not
e)
While Alan arrives at a conclusion by drawing an analogy, Dylan arrives at the same conclusion by refuting the analogy
|
|
Kalyan Nair answered |
Response:
Explanation:
- Challenges Alans reasoning: Dylan challenges Alans reasoning by pointing out that in a study conducted in a country known for producing terrorists, the terrorists were better educated and not necessarily from lower income classes. This directly contradicts Alans assertion that increasing funding to education and reducing poverty would reduce the threat of terrorism.
- Explains the difference between theft and terrorism: Dylan explains that crimes like theft are typically committed for personal gain, whereas terrorism is driven by political or religious motives. This difference in motivation undermines Alans argument that reducing poverty and increasing education funding would also reduce the threat of terrorism.
- Highlights the flaw in Alans analogy: By providing a specific example that contradicts Alans generalization, Dylan challenges the validity of the causal relationship Alan draws between poverty, education, and crime rates. Dylan's response suggests that the factors influencing terrorism are more complex and cannot be addressed simply by addressing poverty and education.
In summary, Dylan's response effectively challenges Alans reasoning by providing a different perspective on the relationship between education, income, and crime rates, particularly in the context of terrorism.
Explanation:
- Challenges Alans reasoning: Dylan challenges Alans reasoning by pointing out that in a study conducted in a country known for producing terrorists, the terrorists were better educated and not necessarily from lower income classes. This directly contradicts Alans assertion that increasing funding to education and reducing poverty would reduce the threat of terrorism.
- Explains the difference between theft and terrorism: Dylan explains that crimes like theft are typically committed for personal gain, whereas terrorism is driven by political or religious motives. This difference in motivation undermines Alans argument that reducing poverty and increasing education funding would also reduce the threat of terrorism.
- Highlights the flaw in Alans analogy: By providing a specific example that contradicts Alans generalization, Dylan challenges the validity of the causal relationship Alan draws between poverty, education, and crime rates. Dylan's response suggests that the factors influencing terrorism are more complex and cannot be addressed simply by addressing poverty and education.
In summary, Dylan's response effectively challenges Alans reasoning by providing a different perspective on the relationship between education, income, and crime rates, particularly in the context of terrorism.
A basket of 1430 apples is divided equally among a group of apple lovers. If 45 people join the group, each apple lover would receive 9 apples less. How many apples did each person get before 45 people joined the feast?- a)20
- b)21
- c)22
- d)23
- e)24
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
A basket of 1430 apples is divided equally among a group of apple lovers. If 45 people join the group, each apple lover would receive 9 apples less. How many apples did each person get before 45 people joined the feast?
a)
20
b)
21
c)
22
d)
23
e)
24
|
|
Pranav Kulkarni answered |
Let's solve the problem step by step:
Let the number of apples each person initially receives be x:
Given that a basket of 1430 apples is divided equally among a group of apple lovers, we have:
Number of people * Number of apples each person initially receives = Total number of apples
x * Number of people = 1430
x = 1430 / Number of people
When 45 people join the group:
Now, each person receives 9 apples less, so the new number of apples each person receives is x - 9.
The total number of apples remains the same:
Number of people * Number of apples each person receives = Total number of apples
(x - 9) * (Number of people + 45) = 1430
Substitute the value of x from the first equation:
(1430 / Number of people - 9) * (Number of people + 45) = 1430
1430 + 45*1430/Number of people - 9(Number of people + 45) = 1430
45*1430/Number of people - 9(Number of people + 45) = 0
45*1430 - 9(Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people) = 0
45*1430 = 9(Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people)
5*143 = Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people
715 = Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people
715 = Number of people(Number of people + 45)
715 = Number of people(Number of people + 45)
Now, find the factors of 715:
715 = 5*11*13
Therefore, Number of people = 13
Substitute this back into x = 1430 / Number of people:
x = 1430 / 13
x = 110
Therefore, each person initially received 110 apples before 45 people joined the feast.
Thus, the correct answer is option C) 22.
Let the number of apples each person initially receives be x:
Given that a basket of 1430 apples is divided equally among a group of apple lovers, we have:
Number of people * Number of apples each person initially receives = Total number of apples
x * Number of people = 1430
x = 1430 / Number of people
When 45 people join the group:
Now, each person receives 9 apples less, so the new number of apples each person receives is x - 9.
The total number of apples remains the same:
Number of people * Number of apples each person receives = Total number of apples
(x - 9) * (Number of people + 45) = 1430
Substitute the value of x from the first equation:
(1430 / Number of people - 9) * (Number of people + 45) = 1430
1430 + 45*1430/Number of people - 9(Number of people + 45) = 1430
45*1430/Number of people - 9(Number of people + 45) = 0
45*1430 - 9(Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people) = 0
45*1430 = 9(Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people)
5*143 = Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people
715 = Number of people^2 + 45*Number of people
715 = Number of people(Number of people + 45)
715 = Number of people(Number of people + 45)
Now, find the factors of 715:
715 = 5*11*13
Therefore, Number of people = 13
Substitute this back into x = 1430 / Number of people:
x = 1430 / 13
x = 110
Therefore, each person initially received 110 apples before 45 people joined the feast.
Thus, the correct answer is option C) 22.
David: Humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, share over 98 percent of our DNA, and they don’t swim or spend time in the water unless they have to. They even use leaves to soak up water to drink, rather than cup their hands.Lynn: True, but we also have a layer of fat under our skin, which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat, not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water, helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water.Lynn responds to David’s argument by- a)Agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view.
- b)Conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument.
- c)Initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons.
- d)Ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument.
- e)Acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
David: Humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, share over 98 percent of our DNA, and they don’t swim or spend time in the water unless they have to. They even use leaves to soak up water to drink, rather than cup their hands.
Lynn: True, but we also have a layer of fat under our skin, which would make us unique in the animal kingdom as the only non-aquatic species that has evolved such fat, not to mention that fatty tissue is 90 percent as dense as water, helping us float and thereby conferring a survival advantage that would be useless outside of water.
Lynn responds to David’s argument by
a)
Agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view.
b)
Conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument.
c)
Initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons.
d)
Ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument.
e)
Acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
The question presents a conversation between David and Lynn regarding the evolution of humans from an aquatic ancestor. David argues that humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor based on the fact that chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, do not swim or spend much time in water. Lynn responds to David's argument.
Let's analyze each answer choice:
(A) agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view. This answer choice suggests that Lynn agrees with David's argument but adds counterarguments from opponents. However, Lynn's response does not indicate agreement with David's argument. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.
(B) conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument. This answer choice states that Lynn acknowledges the validity of David's evidence but presents other evidence that refutes his argument. Lynn's response does not directly refute David's argument but provides additional information to consider. Therefore, (B) is not the correct answer.
(C) initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons. This answer choice suggests that Lynn initially agrees with David but changes her mind by drawing upon comparisons. However, Lynn's response does not indicate agreement with David's argument or a change of mind. Therefore, (C) is not the correct answer.
(D) ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument. This answer choice states that Lynn ignores David's argument and attacks the implications of his facts to support her counterargument. However, Lynn's response does not attack the implications of David's facts. Therefore, (D) is not the correct answer.
(E) acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion. This answer choice suggests that Lynn acknowledges the facts David uses to support his argument but offers additional information without making a conclusion herself. This accurately describes Lynn's response. She acknowledges David's point about chimpanzees not swimming but provides additional information about the layer of fat under our skin and its potential benefits in water. Lynn's response does not conclude whether humans evolved from an aquatic ancestor or not. Therefore, (E) is the correct answer.
In conclusion, Lynn responds to David's argument by acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion. This aligns with answer choice (E).
My neighbor's dogs bark and howl every time their owner lets them outside. My CPA told me that dogs tend to bark and howl when they see birds resting in the top branches of their favorite trees. I personally believe they bark and howl because they enjoy disrupting my meditations.Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the preceding passage?- a)The dogs must be abused by their owners.
- b)The dogs' owners do not make efforts to stop the dogs from barking and howling.
- c)There are many pedestrians who walk by this neighbor's house, and the dogs are starving for attention.
- d)The dogs frequently see birds in the tops of their favorite trees.
- e)The dogs will bark and howl at 3 a.m. if they are outside at that time.
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
My neighbor's dogs bark and howl every time their owner lets them outside. My CPA told me that dogs tend to bark and howl when they see birds resting in the top branches of their favorite trees. I personally believe they bark and howl because they enjoy disrupting my meditations.
Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the preceding passage?
a)
The dogs must be abused by their owners.
b)
The dogs' owners do not make efforts to stop the dogs from barking and howling.
c)
There are many pedestrians who walk by this neighbor's house, and the dogs are starving for attention.
d)
The dogs frequently see birds in the tops of their favorite trees.
e)
The dogs will bark and howl at 3 a.m. if they are outside at that time.
|
|
Rahul Kapoor answered |
- The passage mentions that the dogs bark and howl every time their owner lets them outside.
- It does not explicitly state that the dogs bark and howl specifically at 3 a.m.
- However, since the passage mentions that they bark and howl "every time" they are let outside, it can be inferred that if they are outside at 3 a.m., they will bark and howl at that time as well.
Chapter doubts & questions for Daily Practice Tests - 35 Days Preparation for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Daily Practice Tests - 35 Days Preparation for GMAT in English & Hindi are available as part of GMAT exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
35 Days Preparation for GMAT
171 videos|269 docs|181 tests
|
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup on EduRev and stay on top of your study goals
10M+ students crushing their study goals daily