• Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep

A CR -- less articles

This topic has 3 expert replies and 3 member replies
zoe Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
04 Apr 2016
Posted:
113 messages
Thanked:
1 times

A CR -- less articles

Post Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:48 pm
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    Dear friends,
    Please help explain A,B, D,
    thanks in advance.

    Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
    Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?
    (A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
    (B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
    (C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
    (D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
    (E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication


    IMO:
    (A) says one reason that cause low number of articles, so I think (A) can weaken the argument. while, OG says (A) eliminates the 3rd cause to rend support. I cannot get the OG's idea,
    (B) says the waiting time decline, seems more chance to get accelerators, so I think it weaken the argument.
    (D) says the accelerators can be used multi-experiments, that weaken the "decline availability", so I think (D) can weaken the argument as well.

    please clarify my errors.

    waiting for your reply.

    thanks so much.
    have a nice day.

    >_~

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    Post Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:47 am
    This question is #69 in OG2016.

    If we're asked to UNDERMINE (weaken) an argument, we first must find the logical flaw between the premises and conclusion.

    Premises:
    - the number of articles was lower last year
    - several particle accelerators were out of service

    Conclusion:
    - fewer articles = due to decline in activity of particle accelerators

    Logical Gaps:
    - does the number of articles directly correlate to the number of experiments? Or might there be some other factor influencing what these journals want to publish? Quality of experiments, general interest, the state of the publishing industry, etc.
    - does the number of accelerators directly influence the number of experiments conducted? Or could there have been more total experiments performed, even if a few accelerators were out of service?

    We need a new piece of information that disrupts the assumption that number of accelerators --> number of experiments --> number of articles.

    (A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
    This would actually strengthen the argument, by giving us a direct connection between number of articles and number of experiments. That's the opposite of what we're looking for.

    Quote:
    (A) says one reason that cause low number of articles, so I think (A) can weaken the argument
    To your question - this isn't giving us a different explanation than the journalist's, because it's an extension of the same causation chain: number of accelerators --> number of experiments --> number of articles

    (B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
    It's unclear how this would affect the argument. We're looking for the relationship between low articles and accelerators. Whether scientists had to wait or not would not necessarily affect whether articles were published about it.

    Quote:
    (B) says the waiting time decline, seems more chance to get accelerators, so I think it weaken the argument.
    You're making too many assumptions here. Just because the waiting time declined, that doesn't belie the given premise that there were several accelerators unavailable. We have to treat our premises as TRUE. We don't weaken by contradicting the premise, but by revealing the flawed connection between premise and conclusion.

    (C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
    We have no direct reason to believe that the number of journals would directly affect the number of articles published about these accelerators. And since this is a "no change" answer, it wouldn't weaken - if anything, it would strengthen.

    (D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
    Quote:
    (D) says the accelerators can be used multi-experiments, that weaken the "decline availability", so I think (D) can weaken the argument as well.
    No, this does not weaken "decline in availability." Even if we can use them for multiple experiments, out-of-service accelerators could still mean fewer experiments performed overall, leading to fewer articles. Or it could mean more experiments. There is just no direct tie to what this means about the articles.

    (E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication
    Bingo! This gives us an external factor that completely disrupts the connection between number of articles = number of experiments. If the journals are less likely to publish these articles, it doesn't matter whether there was a decline in activity or not.

    The correct answer is E.

    _________________


    Ceilidh Erickson
    Manhattan Prep GMAT & GRE instructor
    EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
    Harvard Graduate School of Education


    Manhattan Prep instructors all have 99th+ percentile scores and expert teaching experience.
    Sign up for a FREE TRIAL, and learn why we have the highest ratings in the GMAT industry!

    Thanked by: zoe, gmatdestroyer13
    Free Manhattan Prep online events - The first class of every online Manhattan Prep course is free. Classes start every week.
    Post Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:51 am

    _________________


    Ceilidh Erickson
    Manhattan Prep GMAT & GRE instructor
    EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
    Harvard Graduate School of Education


    Manhattan Prep instructors all have 99th+ percentile scores and expert teaching experience.
    Sign up for a FREE TRIAL, and learn why we have the highest ratings in the GMAT industry!

    Thanked by: gmatdestroyer13
    Free Manhattan Prep online events - The first class of every online Manhattan Prep course is free. Classes start every week.
    800_or_bust Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    26 Apr 2014
    Posted:
    199 messages
    Followed by:
    4 members
    Thanked:
    16 times
    Test Date:
    7/9/2016
    GMAT Score:
    780
    Post Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:03 am
    zoe wrote:
    Dear friends,
    Please help explain A,B, D,
    thanks in advance.

    Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
    Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?
    (A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
    (B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
    (C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
    (D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
    (E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication


    IMO:
    (A) says one reason that cause low number of articles, so I think (A) can weaken the argument. while, OG says (A) eliminates the 3rd cause to rend support. I cannot get the OG's idea,
    (B) says the waiting time decline, seems more chance to get accelerators, so I think it weaken the argument.
    (D) says the accelerators can be used multi-experiments, that weaken the "decline availability", so I think (D) can weaken the argument as well.

    please clarify my errors.

    waiting for your reply.

    thanks so much.
    have a nice day.

    >_~
    The correct answer is actually E. The remaining answer choices are irrelevant to the argument presented in the passage.

    _________________
    800 or bust!

    zoe Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    04 Apr 2016
    Posted:
    113 messages
    Thanked:
    1 times
    Post Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:54 pm
    ceilidh.erickson wrote:
    This question is #69 in OG2016.

    If we're asked to UNDERMINE (weaken) an argument, we first must find the logical flaw between the premises and conclusion.

    Premises:
    - the number of articles was lower last year
    - several particle accelerators were out of service

    Conclusion:
    - fewer articles = due to decline in activity of particle accelerators

    Logical Gaps:
    - does the number of articles directly correlate to the number of experiments? Or might there be some other factor influencing what these journals want to publish? Quality of experiments, general interest, the state of the publishing industry, etc.
    - does the number of accelerators directly influence the number of experiments conducted? Or could there have been more total experiments performed, even if a few accelerators were out of service?

    We need a new piece of information that disrupts the assumption that number of accelerators --> number of experiments --> number of articles.

    (A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
    This would actually strengthen the argument, by giving us a direct connection between number of articles and number of experiments. That's the opposite of what we're looking for.

    Quote:
    (A) says one reason that cause low number of articles, so I think (A) can weaken the argument
    To your question - this isn't giving us a different explanation than the journalist's, because it's an extension of the same causation chain: number of accelerators --> number of experiments --> number of articles

    thanks ceilidh, thanks for your excellent explanation.

    for A, i totally agree with you, but i am afraid i need more help because i haven't getten the idea why A is incorrect, i thought again and again after reading your explanation on A, would you please point out my fault...
    (A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published
    in a short , every article that was submitted acutally was published...
    I think A means that articles cann't be published because they was published before, that the 3rd reason cause low number of articles...

    if we want to weaken the conclusion, we can find/show 3rd cause which can cause the effect..
    in this question, the cause = low avialibility of accelerator, effect = low nomber of articles,
    you can realize, A shows a 3rd cause that cause the low number of articles. that's why i think A weaken the argument.
    while both you and OA think A strengthen the argument..
    i don't know what is my fault

    please help again..

    thanks a lot
    have a nice day
    >_~

    Post Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:58 am
    Quote:
    for A, i totally agree with you, but i am afraid i need more help because i haven't getten the idea why A is incorrect, i thought again and again after reading your explanation on A, would you please point out my fault...
    (A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published
    in a short , every article that was submitted acutally was published...
    I think A means that articles cann't be published because they was published before, that the 3rd reason cause low number of articles...

    if we want to weaken the conclusion, we can find/show 3rd cause which can cause the effect..
    in this question, the cause = low avialibility of accelerator, effect = low nomber of articles,
    you can realize, A shows a 3rd cause that cause the low number of articles. that's why i think A weaken the argument.
    while both you and OA think A strengthen the argument..
    i don't know what is my fault
    The conclusion of the argument is "it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators." But the articles in question are "articles reporting the results of experiments." The assumption that we're being asked to make is that lower availability of accelerators last year --> lead to fewer experiments performed last year --> lead to fewer articles published last year.

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by
    Quote:
    I think A means that articles cann't be published because they was published before, that the 3rd reason cause low number of articles...
    The entire scope of the argument is what happened last year. If last year every accelerator yielded the same number of experiments performed, and every experiment performed yielded one article written, and every article written was published, this chain of logic would hold. I think you're maybe interpreting A as a comparison to some other time period?

    _________________


    Ceilidh Erickson
    Manhattan Prep GMAT & GRE instructor
    EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
    Harvard Graduate School of Education


    Manhattan Prep instructors all have 99th+ percentile scores and expert teaching experience.
    Sign up for a FREE TRIAL, and learn why we have the highest ratings in the GMAT industry!

    Free Manhattan Prep online events - The first class of every online Manhattan Prep course is free. Classes start every week.
    zoe Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    04 Apr 2016
    Posted:
    113 messages
    Thanked:
    1 times
    Post Fri Jun 17, 2016 9:01 pm
    ceilidh.erickson wrote:
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by
    I think A means that articles cann't be published because they was published before, that the 3rd reason cause low number of articles...
    ceilidh.erickson wrote:
    The entire scope of the argument is what happened last year. If last year every accelerator yielded the same number of experiments performed, and every experiment performed yielded one article written, and every article written was published, this chain of logic would hold. I think you're maybe interpreting A as a comparison to some other time period?
    thanks so much again Ceilidh,

    I think I know why you didn't catch what I say.

    obviously you think of this question as a chain issue, I did not realize that at beginning, thank you for your mention. also, I read all links you told me, all these links are chain flaws in the questions.

    I think of this question as a cause - effect question, because here is a obviously indicator "due to". so the cause is decine availability, the effect is low number of articles...

    i have read both BIBLE and MANHATTAN, one difference between these two is that cause effect question is one type in BIBLE, while there is no CE (cause effect)type in MANHATTAN.

    maybe that's why you did not catch what i say.

    I like your excellect explanation...it helped a lot.

    i just want to know why A is incorrect if consider it a CE question, because i am weak on CE questions, always can't distinguish Weaken or strengthen choices..
    so bad.....and hope to overcome it.

    thank you for your excellent explanation and your patience.

    it will be great appreciate if you can point out my flaw if consider it CE question.

    have a nice day
    >_~

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 Vincen 152 topics
    2 lheiannie07 61 topics
    3 Roland2rule 49 topics
    4 ardz24 40 topics
    5 LUANDATO 32 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    141 posts
    2 image description EconomistGMATTutor

    The Economist GMAT Tutor

    107 posts
    3 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    106 posts
    4 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    104 posts
    5 image description Matt@VeritasPrep

    Veritas Prep

    76 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts