• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

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

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Reach higher with Artificial Intelligence. Guaranteed
Now free for 30 days

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## A CR -- less articles

tagged by: ceilidh.erickson

This topic has 3 expert replies and 3 member replies
zoe Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
04 Apr 2016
Posted:
116 messages
1

#### A CR -- less articles

Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:48 pm
Dear friends,

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.

thanks so much.
have a nice day.

>_~

### GMAT/MBA Expert

ceilidh.erickson GMAT Instructor
Joined
04 Dec 2012
Posted:
1778 messages
Followed by:
227 members
1443
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

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
Joined
04 Apr 2016
Posted:
116 messages
1
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.

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

have a nice day
>_~

### GMAT/MBA Expert

ceilidh.erickson GMAT Instructor
Joined
04 Dec 2012
Posted:
1778 messages
Followed by:
227 members
1443
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.

_________________

Ceilidh Erickson
Manhattan Prep GMAT & GRE instructor
EdM in Mind, Brain, and 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.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

ceilidh.erickson GMAT Instructor
Joined
04 Dec 2012
Posted:
1778 messages
Followed by:
227 members
1443
Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:51 am

_________________

Ceilidh Erickson
Manhattan Prep GMAT & GRE instructor
EdM in Mind, Brain, and 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.
800_or_bust Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
26 Apr 2014
Posted:
199 messages
Followed by:
4 members
16
Test Date:
7/9/2016
GMAT Score:
780
Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:03 am
zoe wrote:
Dear friends,

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.

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
Joined
04 Apr 2016
Posted:
116 messages
1
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

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 92 topics
2 Roland2rule 61 topics
3 ardz24 60 topics
4 LUANDATO 59 topics
5 M7MBA 50 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

138 posts
2 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

131 posts
3 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

122 posts
4 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

114 posts
5 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

100 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts