Army General: Military experts have learned that positions held by units of up to 40 soldiers can now be held by only two soldiers equipped with new, superautomatic, maximum-velocity weapons. Likewise, larger areas can be held by remarkably few soldiers provided with, and trained in the use of, new triangulating cannons and short-distance rockets. Many of the features of warfare that have so far required hand-to-hand combat by large numbers of soldiers may well be pursued by small numbers of laser technicians at great distances. Upcoming research and testing should indicate how much progress we have to look forward to.
The information above best supports which of the following conclusions?
A)Future soldiers may need considerably more training than the already lengthy and expensive training now given.
B)It is likely that, in the near future, wars can be fought without danger to humans.
C) There is increasing interest in superiority of weaponry and firepower in relation to prior interest in superiority of
manpower.
D)The increased budget necessary for such research is clearly worthwhile and should be appropriated.
E)Military experts are becoming more interested in our soldiers' holding strategic weapons than in their holding strategic
positions.
[spoiler]
This is a simple problem, however I was confused between C and E. C is correct.
"holding strategic positions" is not mentioned in the stimulus "superiority of manpower" indicated by hand-to-hand combat . [/spoiler]
BTG practice questions: military
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
- Geva@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
- Thanked: 378 times
- Followed by:123 members
- GMAT Score:760
I actually took "superior manpower" to mean "more soldiers", rather than "better soldiers". This makes C a clear choice, as it's the only one that ties into the "better technology means less soldiers" reasoning of the argument. I wonder of that was the intent of the authors.
In any case, the argument does not, indeed, discuss whether the positions occupied (by 2 or 40 soldiers) are strategic or not - just discusses the number of soldiers needed to occupy them. It is possible that strategic positiions are still of great interest to a military expert - all we know is that whatever position the general is interested in, he or she can occupy it with fewer soldiers using better tech.
In any case, the argument does not, indeed, discuss whether the positions occupied (by 2 or 40 soldiers) are strategic or not - just discusses the number of soldiers needed to occupy them. It is possible that strategic positiions are still of great interest to a military expert - all we know is that whatever position the general is interested in, he or she can occupy it with fewer soldiers using better tech.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
- ikaplan
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:06 pm
- Thanked: 17 times
- Followed by:1 members
C and E were contenders for me as well- however, the word "strategic positions" in E was a definite indicator that E is incorrect
"Commitment is more than just wishing for the right conditions. Commitment is working with what you have."
Is this thought process way out of scope?
Since, there was not much investment in RnD , there werent many innovations, So In the past given no other option, many men were employed eg - 40 men .Now we have new weapons, and they are because of RnD investments. As per this reasoning D seems to be answer.
Can anyone plz let me know, whats the flaw in the reasoning abv.
Since, there was not much investment in RnD , there werent many innovations, So In the past given no other option, many men were employed eg - 40 men .Now we have new weapons, and they are because of RnD investments. As per this reasoning D seems to be answer.
Can anyone plz let me know, whats the flaw in the reasoning abv.
- Geva@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
- Thanked: 378 times
- Followed by:123 members
- GMAT Score:760
I'm sorry, but it is. Specifically, I'm not sure that the research mentioned in answer choice D is research in weapons development: I think D refers to the research in the last sentence of the argument (research and testing will indicate how much progress we can look forward to) - research aimed at "forecasting" the effects of R&D, not research for developing new technology. There is nothing in the passage that says that such forecasting research is worth it - we simply do not know enough to reach the answer choice D.jaguar123 wrote:Is this thought process way out of scope?
Since, there was not much investment in RnD , there werent many innovations, So In the past given no other option, many men were employed eg - 40 men .Now we have new weapons, and they are because of RnD investments. As per this reasoning D seems to be answer.
Can anyone plz let me know, whats the flaw in the reasoning abv.
But even if the research D refers to is the actual weapons R&D, we still cannot reach D as a conclusion just from these premises. The fact that a technology works, and saves manpower, does not BY ITSELF means that it is worth the budget needed to develop and implement it. We cannot reach the conclusion that the budget is clearly worth it - the argument would have to supply more info as to how much the technology costs, alternatives, etc. So D goes too far from the premises given.
BTW, no offense to BTG practice questions, but the ambiguity I refer to above (which research D refers to) is not something a real GMAT question is likely to introduce or let slide.
- ronnie1985
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:50 am
- Location: Ahmedabad
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:10 members
Confusing. Experts more explanation required
Follow your passion, Success as perceived by others shall follow you
The response in the question stem states this to be a simple one but I found this really tough to nail down.
It came down to between C and D for me and on similar lines as one of the explanation above, I chose D.
Not sure if this would be seen on the actual GMAT.
It came down to between C and D for me and on similar lines as one of the explanation above, I chose D.
Not sure if this would be seen on the actual GMAT.
My attempt to capture my B-School Journey in a Blog : tranquilnomadgmat.blocked
There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.
There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 3:53 am
For me, the answer is D because C says "there is more interest in superior weapons in relation to superior manpower": this seems a strong statement, because nowhere in the passage do they mention manpower is not important. it's just that focus is more on advanced weapons.
D logically concludes (although there's no mention of money in the passage) that the money needed to fund the research is justified.
Any thoughts on the reasoning above?
D logically concludes (although there's no mention of money in the passage) that the money needed to fund the research is justified.
Any thoughts on the reasoning above?
Hi,pratik.rossonero wrote:For me, the answer is D because C says "there is more interest in superior weapons in relation to superior manpower": this seems a strong statement, because nowhere in the passage do they mention manpower is not important. it's just that focus is more on advanced weapons.
D logically concludes (although there's no mention of money in the passage) that the money needed to fund the research is justified.
Any thoughts on the reasoning above?
D is clearly wrong because there's no mention of budget in the passage.
Hope that helps.
The appropriate conclusion must cover the main points stated in the stimulus.
each option highlights a minor point . But C states the entire message of the stimulus- better weapons over the "prior" interest in manpower (earlir, manpower was considered superior but that has changed now).
Ans: C
each option highlights a minor point . But C states the entire message of the stimulus- better weapons over the "prior" interest in manpower (earlir, manpower was considered superior but that has changed now).
Ans: C
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:03 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:700
Erm, I was swinging between A and C.
Since the question mentions that the soldiers would need to be especially trained to use the fancy weapons, I figured that A might be an option. (But then had to discard that because we are not told whether current training is lengthy and expensive)Likewise, larger areas can be held by remarkably few soldiers provided with, and trained in the use of, new triangulating cannons and short-distance rockets. Many of the features of warfare that have so far required hand-to-hand combat by large numbers of soldiers may well be pursued by small numbers of laser technicians at great distances.
- jaspreetsra
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:26 pm
- Thanked: 1 times