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

  • A CR Doubt by Nishchay
    ================================================== =====================================
    I was going through the Critical reasoning section of Princeton study material where I encountered a question mentioned below. I feel the correct answer to the question should be A whereas the correct answer is E.


    Fewer elected officials are supporting environment legislation this year than at any time in the last decade. In a study of thirty elected officials, only five were actively campaigning for new environment legislation.This comes at a time when the public's concern for the environment is growing by leaps and bounds.

    Which of the following conclusions are supported by the passage above?

    A)More elected officials are needed to support environment legislation
    B)elected officials have lost touch with the concerns of the public
    C)the five elected officials who actively campaigned for new environment legislation, should be congratulated
    D)If the environment is to be saved, elected officials must support environment legislation
    E)If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents, many of them must increase their support of environment legislation
    ================================================== =====================================
    Dear Nishchay,
    The reasoning is as follows.
    1. More people are concerned about environment today than a decade ago.
    2. Still only 5 out of 30 representatives are campaigning for environmental legislation.
    3. Conclusion - Fewer elected officials are supporting environment legislation this year than at any time in the last decade.

    The missing link is the disconnect between point 1 and 2. We need a fact that will highlight/resolve the disconnect.

    A) "more" is subjective. How many more? Will 6 officials change the game? It does not seem like it. Not a very strong option, but let's keep this.
    B) "lost touch" cannot be derived. It is too generic to state as well.
    C) "should be congratulated" is an opinion.
    D) "must" is too compulsive. It compulsion cannot be justified from the passage.
    E) Yes, more people are conscious about environment. So, if the officials are truly representing these people, then more officials must be increasing their support.
    Note that this is different than A, because "If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents" part makes it logical to connect people's reaction and officials' reaction. Without this link, we cannot derive anything.
    How does this compare with A? A is not very concrete, whereas E has a dedicated logic that fills the missing link. So E is the better choice.

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

    GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' GMAT Program Ever!

    ISB Admissions Consulting: 90% Interview Invitations since 2010!

    Comment


    • Subjunctive Mood Doubt by Rahul
      ==================
      In the question below, "laws" is plural which matches with plural verb "requires". But how can "judge", which is a singular noun, have plural verb "allow"?

      Laws require that a judge allows public defenders who would otherwise fail to obtain necessary evidence to hire special investigators at public cost.

      A) that a judge allows public defenders who would otherwise fail to obtain necessary evidence to hire
      B) judge to allow public defenders who would otherwise fail to obtain necessary evidence that they can hire
      C) that a judge allow a public defender who would otherwise fail to obtain necessary evidence to hire
      D) judges allow a public defender whose obtaining necessary evidence would otherwise be failing the hiring of
      E) judges to allow a public defender whose necessary evidence would otherwise be failing the hiring of

      ==================
      Dear Rahul,
      This is the case of subjunctive mood. This is a special case where a singular verb is used when there is a "request"/"demand"/"suggestion".

      E.g.
      1. I suggested that my friends watch the movie "The Revenant".
      - I am suggesting, so "my friends" will have a singular verb. Regularly, "my friends" will have a plural verb.
      2. The village head mandates that people maintain cleanliness around their houses.
      - The village head is demanding, so "people" will have a singular verb. Regularly, "people" will have a plural verb.

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

      GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' GMAT Program Ever!

      ISB Admissions Consulting: 90% Interview Invitations since 2010!

      Comment


      • A Grammar Query by Prashant
        ===========================
        I have a doubt in SC Comparison, kindly read the following examples-

        1.A leopard cannot run as fast as a cheetah.-Correct

        2.A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah.-Incorrect
        A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah can.-Correct

        In the above examples I am confused about when to specifically mention the particular trait we are comparing and when not to.
        Why is it not required to mention "Cheetah can" in the first example and necessary in the second?
        ===========================

        Dear Prashant,
        The difference is quite visible, if you look at it analytically.
        Let's see the first sentence.
        A leopard cannot run as fast as a cheetah.
        There is one leopard and one cheetah. No confusion. A leopard runs faster than a cheetah. No "cheetah can" is needed.

        Let's see the second sentence.
        A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah.
        There is one leapard, one cheetah, and one wildebeest!
        So, are we trying to say that
        A) A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah can catch a wildebeest.
        or
        B) A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a leopard can catch a cheetah?

        In other words, analytically, is the comparison between leopard and cheetah or cheetah and wildebeest? Clearly, it is between leopard and cheetah. So we will show the comparison via "leopard can" and "cheetah can". This will remove the unintended statement B above.
        The correct sentence, hence, would be: A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah can.

        ===========================


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

        GMAT Preparation: The Most 'Complete' GMAT Program Ever!

        ISB Admissions Consulting: 90% Interview Invitations since 2010!

        Comment

        Working...
        X

        Covered by...