So I have come across 2 problems that in my opinion are very similar and I got both of them wrong. I am having a bit of difficulty making that leap from the very apparent second best choice ( also the trap) to the correct answer.
I think they are both strengthen questions... so outside info is OK. So help with reasoning and justification for the assimilation of this rather off topic info into the argument would be nice.
source: Manhattan CATs
(1) Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
(A)Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
(B)There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens.
(C)Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as "standard."
(D)There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
(E)Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.
(2) The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.
Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?
(A)For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
(B)While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
(C)Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
(D)Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
(E)The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.
OA 1 C 2 C
2 similar CR problems... why is the second best answer wrng
This topic has expert replies
- Ozlemg
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
- Thanked: 25 times
- Followed by:7 members
1.--> IMO D
Conclusion:microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.
I think B could be the second best option. But I think it is weaker than D. "There have been many reported incidences of people... " is not stronger than "Absolute safety is the only criterion by which..." Many vs only here.
2. Tricky one!
IMO E
What for the correct answers...
Conclusion:microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.
I think B could be the second best option. But I think it is weaker than D. "There have been many reported incidences of people... " is not stronger than "Absolute safety is the only criterion by which..." Many vs only here.
2. Tricky one!
IMO E
What for the correct answers...
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test!
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- 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 think we can better help you if you also specified which answer choices you chose, and why.what? wrote:So I have come across 2 problems that in my opinion are very similar and I got both of them wrong. I am having a bit of difficulty making that leap from the very apparent second best choice ( also the trap) to the correct answer.
I think they are both strengthen questions... so outside info is OK. So help with reasoning and justification for the assimilation of this rather off topic info into the argument would be nice.
source: Manhattan CATs
(1) Almost every modern kitchen today is equipped with a microwave oven, mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households. Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument of the consumer advocates?
Microwave ovens have taken much of the joy out of cooking.
There have been many reported incidences of people who have been scalded by liquids superheated in microwave ovens.
Absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged to be acceptable as "standard."
There is no such thing as a completely safe appliance.
Stoves and ovens that use natural gas consume energy much more efficiently than microwave ovens.
(2) The United States government uses only a household's cash income before taxes to determine whether that household falls below the poverty line in a given year; capital gains, non-cash government benefits, and tax credits are not included. However, yearly cash income is not a fool-proof measure of a given household's disposable income. For example, retirees who live off of capital gains from an extensive portfolio could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet be classified by the government as living in "poverty" because this income is not included in the calculation.
Which of the following, if true, validates the contention that the government's calculation methods must be altered in order to provide statistics that measure true poverty?
For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:24 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:740
IMO:
1 C
(For Strengthen/Weaken questions, strong statements are better).
2 C
(Was confused between C and E but E is basically a reiteration of the fact that the US govt uses cash income before taxes to determine whether the household falls below poverty line).
1 C
(For Strengthen/Weaken questions, strong statements are better).
2 C
(Was confused between C and E but E is basically a reiteration of the fact that the US govt uses cash income before taxes to determine whether the household falls below poverty line).
Q1. Between B and C I chose B as it strengthens the argument where as C is restating the conclusion. Is absolute safety and completely safe the same thing ?
Q2.
For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
This supports the government's calculation method.
While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
The figures do not give a correct understanding of whether the poverty rate decreased or increased. It cannot be used to strengthen or weaken the contention.
Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
This is the correct answer. It supports the fact that the government's method is not correct.
Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.
This is another problem in the government's method but not related to the problem discussed.
Can anyone help on this please?
Q2.
For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
This supports the government's calculation method.
While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
The figures do not give a correct understanding of whether the poverty rate decreased or increased. It cannot be used to strengthen or weaken the contention.
Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
This is the correct answer. It supports the fact that the government's method is not correct.
Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.
This is another problem in the government's method but not related to the problem discussed.
Can anyone help on this please?
Getafix,
I think you reasoning is very close to what it should be. You are correct about no 2. E is a problem with the government method does not provide additional information to 'validate' the contention...
For no 1. re read option C. C is not restating the conclusion.. but providing support for the conclusion by making safety the "only" criterion for standard. This eliminates any other factors that could have been used in declaring the product safe. Thus the conclusion is now stronger.
I think you reasoning is very close to what it should be. You are correct about no 2. E is a problem with the government method does not provide additional information to 'validate' the contention...
For no 1. re read option C. C is not restating the conclusion.. but providing support for the conclusion by making safety the "only" criterion for standard. This eliminates any other factors that could have been used in declaring the product safe. Thus the conclusion is now stronger.
Getafix wrote:Q1. Between B and C I chose B as it strengthens the argument where as C is restating the conclusion. Is absolute safety and completely safe the same thing ?
Q2.
For more than 99% of those classified as living in poverty, yearly cash income comprises the vast majority of each household's disposable income.
This supports the government's calculation method.
While the government's calculation method indicated a 12.5% poverty rate in 2003, the same calculation method indicated anywhere from a 9% to a 16% poverty rate during the preceding decade.
The figures do not give a correct understanding of whether the poverty rate decreased or increased. It cannot be used to strengthen or weaken the contention.
Most established research studies conducted by the private sector indicate that the number of people truly living in poverty in the U.S. is less than that indicated by the government's calculation method.
This is the correct answer. It supports the fact that the government's method is not correct.
Several prominent economists endorse an alternate calculation method which incorporates all income, not just cash income, and adjusts for taxes paid and other core expenses.
The government's calculation method also erroneously counts those who do not earn income in a given year but who have substantial assets on which to live during that year.
This is another problem in the government's method but not related to the problem discussed.
Can anyone help on this please?
I have given more points to discuss on the 2 problems in order to improve my understanding. I am still worried that if I saw a similar question on the GMAT, I won't able to make navigate the tricky choices.
I got both of them incorrect.
1.E - I thought when we get strengthen an argument question, we go for a different perspective to the same problem. In this case Oven's are not safe. All other points discusses about safety, E brings in a new perspective to it. Is it not. OA says so. Umm..
1.E - I thought when we get strengthen an argument question, we go for a different perspective to the same problem. In this case Oven's are not safe. All other points discusses about safety, E brings in a new perspective to it. Is it not. OA says so. Umm..