BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Kaplan CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Kaplan CR

by crimson2283 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:13 am
Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:07 am
Thanked: 72 times
Followed by:6 members

by manpsingh87 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:27 am
crimson2283 wrote:Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.
my take in bold..!!!
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by crimson2283 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:28 am
Please explain your reasoning. Why not A?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by crimson2283 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:50 am
I see it. A has - more than half the time
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:07 am
Thanked: 72 times
Followed by:6 members

by manpsingh87 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:24 am
crimson2283 wrote:I see it. A has - more than half the time
Exactly...!! i think i don't need to elaborate more...!!!! :mrgreen:
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:07 am
Why C ?
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:750

by fitzgerald23 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:08 pm
1. Gambling experts say computer programs will allow skilled techs to win almost every time
2. This claim cant be evaluated because there will always be excuses for the losses.

A. Incorrect. There are a few issues here. One is that they are talking about some techs and not necessarily skilled ones. Secondly more than half of the time doesnt mean all the time.

B. Incorrect. Just because it does not exist yet does not mean it can or can not be evaluated when and if it comes to the market.

C. Correct. The argument is based on the fact that you cant measure losses. If a direct correlation already exists between computers and success than that correlation can be used to evaluate the claim and in fact measure why a loss did or did not occur.

D. Incorrect. Whether the software exists or not is important. All we care about is measuring the success of the software.

E. Incorrect. Whether or not gamblers can do well without computers has no meaning in this case.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:13 pm
Fitzgerald23,
But C still leaves the scope for an excuse
Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.
C)There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
If C is true then if the programmer loses a bet, he can always make an excuse that the equipment with him wasnt that sophisticated
Why do u still root for C?
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: New Jersey, US
Thanked: 2 times

by saurabh_maths » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:45 pm
IMO it shd be C.
I had only two contenders A and C.

I negated A coz it mentions "more than half". but the argument says the 'a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing'.

C - says that there is direct relation between the sophestication of technolgy and success. Same has been said in the argument. 'with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing'.

BTW what's the OA ?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:750

by fitzgerald23 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:15 pm
mundasingh123 wrote:Fitzgerald23,
But C still leaves the scope for an excuse
Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.
C)There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
If C is true then if the programmer loses a bet, he can always make an excuse that the equipment with him wasnt that sophisticated
Why do u still root for C?
You have to remember that the choice does not have to be perfect. It has to be the best of the bunch. The choice is telling us that there is a correlation between technology and success. A correlation like this tells us that whatever level the technology is will determine success. It more or less tells us that the technology will answer the question and that the excuses are limited.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by crimson2283 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:29 pm
OA is C
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1