MUST HAVE 15 GMAT full-length tests with video explanations, rigorous analytics, 200+ conceptual videos, and a set of 12 sentence correction e-books. $50!Know More
Dedicated Thread for the Experts' Students - Experts' Global
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Dedicated Thread for the Experts' Students Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    1000 SC:
    1. Constance Horner, chief of the United States government’s personnel agency, has recommended that the use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds for not hiring an applicant.

    (A) the use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds for not hiring an applicant
    (B) any dangerous or illegal drug, if used in the five years prior to applying for a job, should be grounds not to hire the applicant
    (C) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds not to hire them
    (D) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to applying for a job are grounds that they not be hired
    (E) for five years prior to applying for a job, an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug be grounds for not hiring them

    Solution:
    (A) the use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds for not hiring an applicant
    A is the best option. It avoids any below mentioned issues.
    (B) any dangerous or illegal drug, if used in the five years prior to applying for a job, should be grounds not to hire the applicant
    The use of drugs, not drugs, should be the ground for not hiring the applicant.
    (C) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds not to hire them
    (D) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to applying for a job are grounds that they not be hired
    (E) for five years prior to applying for a job, an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug be grounds for not hiring them



    2. Critics of the trend toward privately operated prisons consider corrections facilities to be an integral part of the criminal justice system and question if profits should be made from incarceration.
    (A) to be an integral part of the criminal justice system and question if
    (B) as an integral part of the criminal justice system and they question if
    (C) as being an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
    (D) an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
    (E) are an integral part of the criminal justice system, and they question whether

    Solution: The correct idiom is ‘Consider X Y’.
    Consider X to be Y; Consider X as Y; Consider X is/am/are/was/were Y are incorrect usage.
    Also for IF and WHETHER, always remember IF is used for condition and WHETHER is used for choice.
    The use of ‘if’ is incorrect here. D is the best answer.


    (A) to be an integral part of the criminal justice system and question if
    (B) as an integral part of the criminal justice system and they question if
    (C) as being an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
    (D) an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
    (E) are an integral part of the criminal justice system, and they question whether

    3. During the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated to have left Mexico and added to the strain on the country’s debt-ridden economy.
    (A) During the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated to have left Mexico and added
    (B) During the 1980’s it is estimated that approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico and added
    (C) It is estimated that there was approximately $50 billion in private investment capital that left Mexico during the 1980’s and added
    (D) It is estimated that during the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico, adding
    (E) Approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated as having left Mexico during the 1980’s, adding

    Solution:
    Subject did X and did Y. It means subject did two things.
    Subject did X, doing Y. It means subject X and result was y. Here the addition of strain is not an addition task done. It is rather the effect of earlier action.

    (A) During the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated to have left Mexico and added
    (B) During the 1980’s it is estimated that approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico and added
    (C) It is estimated that there was approximately $50 billion in private investment capital that left Mexico during the 1980’s and added
    (D) It is estimated that during the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico, adding
    (E) Approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated as having left Mexico during the 1980’s, adding Estimated as having left is awkward, making D the best choice.​

    Comment


    • #32
      1000 SC:

      1. Constance Horner, chief of the United States government’s personnel agency, has recommended that the use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds for not hiring an applicant.

      (A) the use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds for not hiring an applicant
      (B) any dangerous or illegal drug, if used in the five years prior to applying for a job, should be grounds not to hire the applicant
      (C) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds not to hire them
      (D) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to applying for a job are grounds that they not be hired
      (E) for five years prior to applying for a job, an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug be grounds for not hiring them

      Solution:
      (A) the use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds for not hiring an applicant
      A is the best option. It avoids any below mentioned issues.
      (B) any dangerous or illegal drug, if used in the five years prior to applying for a job, should be grounds not to hire the applicant
      The use of drugs, not drugs, should be the ground for not hiring the applicant.
      (C) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to application for a job be grounds not to hire them
      (D) an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug in the five years prior to applying for a job are grounds that they not be hired
      (E) for five years prior to applying for a job, an applicant’s use of any dangerous or illegal drug be grounds for not hiring them



      2. Critics of the trend toward privately operated prisons consider corrections facilities to be an integral part of the criminal justice system and question if profits should be made from incarceration.
      (A) to be an integral part of the criminal justice system and question if
      (B) as an integral part of the criminal justice system and they question if
      (C) as being an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
      (D) an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
      (E) are an integral part of the criminal justice system, and they question whether

      Solution: The correct idiom is ‘Consider X Y’.
      Consider X to be Y; Consider X as Y; Consider X is/am/are/was/were Y are incorrect usage.
      Also for IF and WHETHER, always remember IF is used for condition and WHETHER is used for choice.
      The use of ‘if’ is incorrect here. D is the best answer.


      (A) to be an integral part of the criminal justice system and question if
      (B) as an integral part of the criminal justice system and they question if
      (C) as being an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
      (D) an integral part of the criminal justice system and question whether
      (E) are an integral part of the criminal justice system, and they question whether

      3. During the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated to have left Mexico and added to the strain on the country’s debt-ridden economy.
      (A) During the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated to have left Mexico and added
      (B) During the 1980’s it is estimated that approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico and added
      (C) It is estimated that there was approximately $50 billion in private investment capital that left Mexico during the 1980’s and added
      (D) It is estimated that during the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico, adding
      (E) Approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated as having left Mexico during the 1980’s, adding

      Solution:
      Subject did X and did Y. It means subject did two things.
      Subject did X, doing Y. It means subject X and result was y. Here the addition of strain is not an addition task done. It is rather the effect of earlier action.

      (A) During the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated to have left Mexico and added
      (B) During the 1980’s it is estimated that approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico and added
      (C) It is estimated that there was approximately $50 billion in private investment capital that left Mexico during the 1980’s and added
      (D) It is estimated that during the 1980’s approximately $50 billion in private investment capital left Mexico, adding
      (E) Approximately $50 billion in private investment capital is estimated as having left Mexico during the 1980’s, adding
      Estimated as having left is awkward, making D the best choice.​

      Comment


      • #33
        Dear Sir

        I am not able to arrive at a conclusion for the following CR questions.

        Could you kindly help me with it?


        The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. The author assumes which of the following?
        • The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
        • The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
        • Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
        • The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
        • Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.


        Solution:
        Argument is: DHS has suggested changes which will allow driver’s license as ID.
        This is un-American, because it will, gradually, compromise the freedom of citizens.
        Now what is the assumption? Any assumption if negated, invalidates the conclusion.
        Let’s have a look:
        The conduct of next presidential election has no bearing on the conclusion. A is out.
        The curtailing of activities of those considered dissidents does not address the issue of ‘un-American’. B is out too.
        Now, option C states that, “blanket restrictions on citizens are un-American.” Now if we negate this, conclusion will fall apart. C is our answer.
        The negation of D will be, majority of Americans are ready to give up their right to travel. That does not address the issue of new driver’s license being un-American. D is also out.
        E is irrelevant, as it discusses the point not central to the argument.






        Researchers studying the spread of the Black Plague in sixteenth-century England claim that certain people survived the epidemic because they carried a genetic mutation, known as Delta-32, that is known to prevent the bacteria that causes the Plague from overtaking the immune system. To support this hypothesis, the researchers tested the direct descendants of the residents of an English town where an unusually large proportion of people survived the Plague. More than half of these descendants tested positive for the mutation Delta-32, a figure nearly three times higher than that found in other locations. The researchers’ hypothesis is based on which of the following assumptions?
        • Delta-32 does not prevent a carrier from contracting any disease other than the Plague.
        • The Plague is not similar to other diseases caused by bacteria.
        • Delta-32 did not exist in its current form until the sixteenth century.
        • No one who tested positive for Delta-32 has ever contracted a disease caused by bacteria.
        • The Plague does not cause genetic mutations such as Delta-32.

        Solution:
        Argument is, D-32 stops bacteria which causes BP.
        Because, descendants of residents of a town which survived BP have D-32, three times higher than others.
        Now if we negate assumption, conclusion must fall apart, but we use this technique in options which are potential answers. First we try to eliminate irrelevant options and those which are clearly wrong.
        1. Whether D-32 is helpful in other diseases or not is irrelevant. A is out.
        2. The similarity of Plague to other diseases caused by bacteria has no bearing on the conclusion.
        3. This option weakens the conclusion, hence cannot be the answer.
        4. Now this one seems close. Let’s negate this one:
        Negation will be, At least one person who tested positive for D-32 has contracted a disease caused by bacteria. But we are not concerned with any disease caused by bacteria, but with Plague. Hence D is out.
        1. The negation of E will be that Plague causes D-32. If this were true then presence of D-32 in residents will not support that D-32 prevents B Plague. E is the best answer.


        Comment


        • #34
          Hi,

          PFB one of the question from the Kaplan Test.

          Before George Eliot became the popular and respected novelist known as George Eliot, she
          had been
          an anonymous translator and essayist of formidably far-ranging scholarship.

          (A) Before George Eliot became the popular and respected novelist known as George Eliot, she had been

          (B) Before she had been the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, she was

          (C) George Eliot has been the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, after such time as she was

          (D) Before George Eliot became the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, she was

          (E) George Eliot, before she was the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, had been


          Could you please confirm that A is the correct answer and not D?

          Solution:
          This question is based on understanding of tenses (particularly Past Perfect Tense).
          Past Perfect Tense is used when there are two events in the past and we have to make the sequence of the action clear by the use of tense.
          In that case we use Past Perfect Tense with the event that happened earlier in past, and Simple Past o Past Indefinite Tense with the event which happened later in past.
          Here in this question, there are two events: One, becoming popular; Two, being anonymous.
          Now we know clearly that being anonymous happened before being popular. Hence HAD should come with being anonymous part, and simple past should be used with being popular.
          Let’s have a look at the options now:
          (A) Before George Eliot became the popular and respected novelist known as George Eliot, she had been

          (B) Before she
          had been the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, she was

          (C) George Eliot
          has been the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, after such time as she was

          (D) Before George Eliot
          became the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, she was

          (E) George Eliot, before she was the popular and respected novelist, George Eliot, had been

          So due to incorrect usage of tense B, C and D are out. In A and E, E is awkward and confusing due to its structure. A is the best choice.

          Comment


          • kannav
            kannav commented
            Editing a comment
            If we are using "Before" in option A then are we required to use past perfect tense?

          • Mentor_Experts
            Mentor_Experts commented
            Editing a comment
            We can omit 'past perfect tense' when the sequence of events is apparent, but given a choice between choosing past perfect and simple past, past perfect is a better choice. This is why 'D' is ruled out.

        • #35
          Oliver's doubt...

          Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

          Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

          Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

          (A) The fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an indication that unemployment is abnormally high.
          (B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.
          (C) If at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
          (D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.
          (E) If an unemployment figure is given as a certain percent, the actual percentage of those without jobs is even higher.

          Solution:

          Approach: The question requires us to find the likely conclusion of the dialogue; the question can be practically considered a para completion question.

          Mind map: R says that 90% people know someone unemployed --> S says that 1/20 unemployment is moderate --> People tend to easily know 50 and hence, almost everybody will know someone unemployed.

          What are we looking for in the answer choices: I am typing this before looking at the answer choices; the likely conclusion is something like "% people someone unemployed is not the right yardstick for measuring the degree of unemployment"

          Let's Eliminate now...

          A:
          Quite in sync with what we're looking for; the tone "is not an indication.." keeps the choice moderate.
          B: It's the reverse of what the likely conclusion
          C: Weird
          D: Such options are almost always incorrect (choices questioning the correctness of stated facts)
          E: Weird

          A wins hand down.

          MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

          GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

          GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

          Comment


          • #36
            Oliver's doubt...

            Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

            Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

            Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

            (A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
            (B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
            (C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
            (D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
            (E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

            Solution:

            Approach: The question requires us to find the assumption in second person's reasoning.

            Mind map: R says that 90% people know someone unemployed --> S says that 1/20 unemployment is moderate --> People tend to easily know 50 and hence, almost everybody will know someone unemployed.

            What are we looking for in the answer choices: S's argument is fairly logical with no hasty assumptions. Probably, the only assumption is that a common person generally knows around 50; let's use the options to or benefit.

            Let's Eliminate now...

            A: Out of the context
            B: Worth keeping in first look; if unemployed people were to be isolated in geographies, the logic that almost everyone knows someone unemployed may not apply.
            C: 'Always' makes it an extreme choice
            D: Such choices are almost always incorrect.
            E: Out of the context

            Hence, B is the best choice.
            MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

            GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

            GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

            Comment


            • #37
              Oliver's third doubt...

              Parasitic wasps lay their eggs directly into the eggs of various host insects in exactly the right numbers for any suitable size of host egg, If they laid too many eggs in a host egg, the developing wasp larvae would compete with each other to the death for nutrients and space. If too few eggs were laid, portions of the host egg would decay, killing the wasp larvae.

              Which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn from the information above?

              A. The size of the smallest host egg that a wasp could theoritically parasitize can be determined from the wasp's egg- laying behavior.

              B. Host insects lack any effective defenses against the form of predation practiced by parasitic wasps.

              C. Parasitic wasps learn from experience how many eggs to lay into the eggs of different host species.

              D. Failure to lay enough eggs would lead to the death of the developing wasp larvae more quickly than would laying too many eggs.

              E. Parasitic wasps use visual clues to calculate the size of a host egg.


              Solution:

              Approach: The question requires us to find what can be safely concluded from the reasoning.

              Mind map: P lay eggs in right numbers as per the size of host eggs --> if more, they compete --> if less, they decay

              What are we looking for in the answer choices: An answer choice free of any assumptions, extrapolations.

              Let's Eliminate now...

              A: Worth keeping in first look
              B: Out of context
              C: Out of context owing to the buzz term 'learn'
              D: Cannot be inferred; no info in this regard
              E: Cannot be inferred; no info in this regard

              Now we have a detailed look at A; it makes sense as a wasp's egg laying behavior can suggest whether a host egg shall be of the right size, larger, or smaller to be parasitized.

              Hence, A is the best choice.
              MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

              GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

              GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

              Comment


              • #38
                Abhey's Doubt...

                Mary passed a certain gas station on a highway while traveling west at a constant speed of 50 miles per hour. Then, 15 minutes later, Paul passed the same gas station while traveling west at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour. If both drivers maintained their speeds and both remained on the highway for at least 2 hours, how long after he passed the gas station did Paul catch up with Mary?

                A. 30 min
                B. 45 min
                C. 1 hr
                D. 1 hr 15 min
                E. 1 hr 30 min

                Solution:

                Relative distance to be covered by Paul = distance traveled by Mary in 15 Mins @ 50m/h = 50/4 = 12.5 miles

                Relative speed = 60-50 = 10 miles/hr

                Hence, time needed = 12.5/10 = 1.25 hrs = 1 hr 15 minutes

                That's a very easy problem!
                MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                Comment


                • #39
                  Abhey's second doubt...


                  From a group of 8 volunteers, including Andrew and Karen, 4 people are to be selected at random to organize a charity event. What is the probability that Andrew will be among the 4 volunteers selected and Karen will not?

                  A. 3/7
                  B. 5/12
                  C. 27/70
                  D. 2/7
                  E. 9/35


                  Solution:

                  Total cases = 8c4 = 8x7x6x5/24 = 70

                  Favorable cases:

                  A selected, K not selected. Hence, from the other 6, only three need to be selected.
                  ie: 6c3 = 20

                  Hence, the probability = 20/70

                  = 2/7

                  D.

                  MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                  GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                  GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Abhey's Third Doubt...


                    Which of the following is a perfect square?
                    A) 649
                    B) 961
                    C) 1664
                    D) 2509
                    E) 100000

                    Solution:

                    I am not sure what's the doubt here. 31^2 = 961; hence, B.

                    You marked 649; that's not a perfect square; it lies between 25^2 = 625 and 26^2 = 676



                    MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                    GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                    GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      Bag A contains red, white and blue marbles such that the red to white marble ratio is 1:3 and the white to blue marble ratio is 2:3. Bag B contains red and white marbles in the ratio of 1:4. Together, the two bags contain 30 white marbles. How many red marbles could be in bag A?

                      A. 1
                      B. 3
                      C. 4
                      D. 6
                      E. 8


                      Solution:

                      Bag A:

                      R:W = 1:3 = 2:6
                      W:B=2:3 = 6:9

                      Common ratio R:W:B = 2:6:9

                      Let's say the bag contains 2k, 6k, 9k marbles each


                      Bag B:

                      R:W = 1:4

                      Let's say the bag contains 1m and 4m marbles each.

                      Total white marbles = 6k + 4m = 30

                      The possible combinations are k=1, m=6 or k=3, m=3

                      Hence, the number of red marbles in bag A (2k) can be 2x1 =2 or 2x3 = 6.

                      Among the options, we don't have 2 but we have a 6.

                      Hence, D.








                      MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                      GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                      GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        Abhey's fifth doubt...


                        At a speed of 50 miles per hour, a certain car uses 1 gallon of gasoline every 30 miles. If the car starts with a full 12 gallon tank of gasoline and travels for 5 hours at 50 miles per hour, the amount of gasoline used would be what fraction of a full tank?

                        A. 3/25
                        B. 11/36
                        C. 7/12
                        D. 2/3
                        E. 25/36


                        Solution:

                        1 gallon per 30 miles (@50 m/h)

                        5 hours @ 50m/hr; hence, miles travelled = 5x50 =250

                        Hence, gallons consumed = 250/30 = 25/3

                        Full tank = 12 gallons

                        Hence, the fraction used = (25/3)/12 = 25/36

                        E.
                        MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                        GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                        GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          Hi

                          Please explain a doubt in the following inequality question.

                          | 2X+10 | > X-5

                          This will have two ranges

                          First,

                          2X+10>X-5
                          X>-15

                          Second,

                          2X+10<5-X
                          X<-5/3

                          So on putting these extreme values LHS should be equal to RHS

                          Put -15 to check.
                          |2*-15+10| = |-20| = 20 LHS
                          -15-5 = -20 RHS
                          LHS does not come equal to RHS please explain

                          Comment


                          • #44
                            Originally posted by Abhey View Post
                            Hi

                            Please explain a doubt in the following inequality question.

                            | 2X+10 | > X-5

                            This will have two ranges

                            First,

                            2X+10>X-5
                            X>-15

                            Second,

                            2X+10<5-X
                            X<-5/3

                            So on putting these extreme values LHS should be equal to RHS

                            Put -15 to check.
                            |2*-15+10| = |-20| = 20 LHS
                            -15-5 = -20 RHS
                            LHS does not come equal to RHS please explain


                            Hi Abhey,

                            This will often happen; if you're plugging options, just make sure that the magnitudes (irrespective of the sign) are the same on LHS and RHS.

                            For example, if there were an option including X>-16, we'll have 22 on LHS and -21 on RHS and thus, such an option shall never be correct.

                            Thanks,
                            Maxximus
                            MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                            GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                            GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                            Comment


                            • #45
                              Parit's Doubt...

                              Samuel is obviously a bad fisherman. During the past season, in which he and the five members of his team spent four months on a boat together off Dutch Harbor, AK, he caught fewer fish than any of his teammates.
                              Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
                              A) Two seasons ago, Samuel fished on another boat off Dutch Harbor and caught more fish than any other member of that boat.
                              B) Before becoming a fisherman, Samuel piloted a fishing boat whose members regularly caught record numbers of fish.
                              C) While fishing this past season, Samuel fell sick for a week and did not catch any fish during this time.
                              D) Unlike the other fishermen on his boat, at the order of the captain, Samuel fished this past season with experimental bait.
                              E) Amongst the fishing community in Dutch Harbor, Samuel has a reputation for being an especially bad fisherman.

                              Solution:

                              Approach: We need to weaken the conclusion

                              Mind Map: Samuel and his team of five went fishing --> He caught the least fishes of the six --> He's a bad fisherman (Conclusion)

                              What are we looking for in the answer choice? : Something that proves that he's not a bad fisherman. The first thought that comes to my mind (of course, without looking at the answer choices, is what if his main job is not to catch fishes but sth like managing his team etc?)

                              Let's now attack the answer choices, hunting the one that weakens the conclusion that S is a bad fisherman.

                              A: It talks about the past so a bad choice as the conclusion is about the present.
                              B: Again about the past. Talks about the team performance while the conclusion is about his individual nature. Bad choice.
                              C: Interesting. It suggests that he fell ill and therefore, couldn't contribute because of his bad health (and not because he's bad at his job). Worth keeping.
                              D: Very interesting. It's quite possible that the experimental bait didn't work.
                              E: If anything, it strengthens (and not weakens) the conclusion.

                              Now let's compare C and D. C is not a very strong choice as it talks about only a week out of four months.

                              D gives a strong alternate reason and is the best choice here.

                              Regards,
                              Maxximus
                              MBA Admissions Consulting: Every 10th Indian in US top 50 is our Student!

                              GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' Program Ever

                              GMAT Classroom Program: Maxximus Teaches in Noida!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Covered by...