GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > This GMAT practice question is a verbal criti...
Start Learning for Free
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.
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.
Q. 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?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Verified Answer
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. C...
Step 1 of solving this GMAT Critical Reasoning Question: 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 of solving this GMAT CR Question: Process of Elimination
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 (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.
Choice C is the correct answer.
Most Upvoted Answer
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. C...
Explanation:
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.
- This option explains the paradox by suggesting that applicants may be more willing to understate the number of luxury items they own, such as cars and TVs, in order to maximize welfare aid.
- However, when it comes to basic necessities such as running water and gas connection, the applicants may feel embarrassed to admit that they do not have these essentials, leading them to falsely claim that they do have them.
- This explanation helps resolve the paradox by highlighting the different attitudes and perceptions towards luxury items versus basic necessities among welfare aid applicants.
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.
- This option explains the paradox by suggesting that applicants may be more willing to understate the number of luxury items they own, such as cars and TVs, in order to maximize welfare aid.
- However, when it comes to basic necessities such as running water and gas connection, the applicants may feel embarrassed to admit that they do not have these essentials, leading them to falsely claim that they do have them.
- This explanation helps resolve the paradox by highlighting the different attitudes and perceptions towards luxury items versus basic necessities among welfare aid applicants.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. C...
Step 1 of solving this GMAT Critical Reasoning Question: 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 of solving this GMAT CR Question: Process of Elimination
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 (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.
Choice C is the correct answer.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Top Courses for GMATView all
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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?
Question Description
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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?.
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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?.
Solutions for This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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 detailed solution for This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? has been provided alongside types of This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice This GMAT practice question is a verbal critical reasoning question. Concept tested in the question: Resolve the paradox in the argument.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.Q. 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 dont have certain things, they felt embarrassed having to accept that they dont 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? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup