Kaplan CR
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
liferocks
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:31 pm
- Thanked: 97 times
- Followed by:1 members
If the authors view is correct,then the 3 newly added villages must have less garbage production per capita than city to reduce the over all garbage production per capita .Option C clearly refutes this.Hence correct ans is C
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll
Lewis Carroll
-
akhpad
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 809
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:4 members
Last year, city incorporated three villagers, resulting an increase of population by 30 %.
The year before last, garbage produced per capita at village = that of city.
I could not understood "Last year" and "The year before last". we have data of two different times. Please explain it.
Weaken the author's objection.
Author's objection = Statistic is deceptive
=> I have to prove that statistic is right.
I could not come to this point.
The year before last, garbage produced per capita at village = that of city.
I could not understood "Last year" and "The year before last". we have data of two different times. Please explain it.
Weaken the author's objection.
Author's objection = Statistic is deceptive
=> I have to prove that statistic is right.
I could not come to this point.
-
paes
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
C is correct :
Lets assume, that last year
city avg garbage -> X
the 3 villages avg garbage -> X
it means
overall avg garbage --> X (for last year)
Now as per the first line : amount of the garbage per capita has decreased -> Y
ie.
Y < X
Clearly the overall avg has reduced this year.
So the program is effective.
Lets assume, that last year
city avg garbage -> X
the 3 villages avg garbage -> X
it means
overall avg garbage --> X (for last year)
Now as per the first line : amount of the garbage per capita has decreased -> Y
ie.
Y < X
Clearly the overall avg has reduced this year.
So the program is effective.
-
liferocks
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:31 pm
- Thanked: 97 times
- Followed by:1 members
Last year the program started and before that city as well as the village has same garbage production per-capita .So while collecting statistics no mismatch of data is present.akhp77 wrote:Last year, city incorporated three villagers, resulting an increase of population by 30 %.
The year before last, garbage produced per capita at village = that of city.
I could not understood "Last year" and "The year before last". we have data of two different times. Please explain it.
Weaken the author's objection.
Author's objection = Statistic is deceptive
=> I have to prove that statistic is right.
I could not come to this point.
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll
Lewis Carroll
-
diebeatsthegmat
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:3 members
hi,akhp77 wrote:Source: Kaplan
Problem is in image
OA: C
Please explain.
first of all, i chose B for this answer but after reviewing, C makes sense more.
According to the argument, the chief says that the amount of trash decrease in the city is because of her successful program which help reduce the amount of ash in the city.
the Author of the passage says that " nooo, this statement is a lie! last year the city incorporated 3 more villages. and this incorporation made the increase in population in the city so the garbage produced must increase!"
we need to weaken the author's objection and C does that.
C says that ( we suppose last year is 2000 and the year before is 1999) in 1999, the total amount of garbage produced by 3 village = the amount of garbage produced in the city! Since those 3 villages incorporated to the city, thus the amount of garbage or trash must increase but, opposite, it didnt increase, it decreased...and that decrease in trash is helped by the program.
Does it make sense now?
-
akhpad
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 809
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:4 members
Sorry guysShawshank wrote:guys..
am unable to see the image. How do I fix this ????
Sometime, I have to post Q in image as it saves precious time.
If you can't see image, please refresh you page by pressing F5, Alt+F5, or Ctrl+F5.
Ctrl+F5 => It will refresh your page with whole content including JavaScript.
-
akhpad
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 809
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:4 members
After incorporating three villages, garbage of city doubled but population of city increased by only 30%.
So, overall garbage per capita should increase but this is not happening; instead of that, it is decreasing.
Am I right?
Good, I got it.
So, overall garbage per capita should increase but this is not happening; instead of that, it is decreasing.
Am I right?
Good, I got it.
-
diebeatsthegmat
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:3 members
yeah, that is what i wanted to say. sorry, i've just learned english thus my english grammar is still so bad so it takes time and words for me to type what i thought and understood!akhp77 wrote:After incorporating three villages, garbage of city doubled but population of city increased by only 30%.
So, overall garbage per capita should increase but this is not happening; instead of that, it is decreasing.
Am I right?
Good, I got it.
