C??viju9162 wrote:Karan,
Answer might be A or C.
I thought C was completely out of scope. can you provide the reasoning behind?
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
780+ CR's
IMO - A.
Eriks conclusion is that the recommendation that Fredida gave is pointless. IMO - if something is pointless, it may mean that the demerits outwiegh the merits.
Eriks conclusion is that the recommendation that Fredida gave is pointless. IMO - if something is pointless, it may mean that the demerits outwiegh the merits.
Answer is A
OE : Erik's response simply sidesteps Frieda's reasoning, accepting the fact that lightning causes fires, but saying that other things cause a lot of fires, too. That's hardly a reason for not doing something about the lightning damage. Erik's problem is that he gives absolutely no reason for not following
Now why B is wrong :
It's true that Erik fails to offer any additional way of combatting lightning damage, but that's not the point. Even if he did have other ideas, that wouldn't indicate that Frieda's recommendation also shouldn't be acted on.
Hope you guys liked the questions out here.
OE : Erik's response simply sidesteps Frieda's reasoning, accepting the fact that lightning causes fires, but saying that other things cause a lot of fires, too. That's hardly a reason for not doing something about the lightning damage. Erik's problem is that he gives absolutely no reason for not following
Now why B is wrong :
It's true that Erik fails to offer any additional way of combatting lightning damage, but that's not the point. Even if he did have other ideas, that wouldn't indicate that Frieda's recommendation also shouldn't be acted on.
Hope you guys liked the questions out here.
I will go for A as the conclusion states that " the real cause must lie somewhere else" . The argument mentions that "high household debt levels could have been the cause for recession" which shows that the argument is trying to figure out the main cause of recession.
I personalized the argument:gmat740 wrote:Please state the reason why D is wrong and why A is correct.shilpi84 wrote:IMO:A
some theorists:household debtness led to recession.
How?(There is a reason that most assets were owned by low-income household,and most of the debt was owned by low-income households....)
now a counter fact is introduced which says that quite affluent people must have owned most of the household debt,since money is not lent to those without assets.
Conclusion of the argument based on the counter premise is that therefore,the real cause must lie elsewhere.
This implies A
