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

Redeem

betting on sports! an MGMAT question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:14 am
Location: India
GMAT Score:710

betting on sports! an MGMAT question

by rb90 » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:56 pm
Betting on sports, even for small stakes among friends, is a form of gambling. Therefore, no police officer should ever bet on sports.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion that no police officer should ever bet on sports?

A.Gambling is illegal in many states and countries.

B.Some people who bet on sports are convicted criminals.

C.People who bet on sports sometimes can ill afford to lose the amounts they wager.

D.No police officer should ever gamble.

E.Many philosophers consider gambling to be immoral.


The answer is D and not A as i thought.The explaination is as follows:
A) This does not provide support for the conclusion that no police officer should ever bet on sports. Some police officers are in places where gambling is legal.
..Now doesnt "in many states and countries" cover the " Some police officers are in places where gambling is legal" part?
Please help
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:04 am
A..
"many" in option means that there is possibility for existence of a country or state where gambling is legal.


D
bet on sports then gambling
NO police then bet on sports

=> No police equals gambling.

rb90 wrote:Betting on sports, even for small stakes among friends, is a form of gambling. Therefore, no police officer should ever bet on sports.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion that no police officer should ever bet on sports?

A.Gambling is illegal in many states and countries.

B.Some people who bet on sports are convicted criminals.

C.People who bet on sports sometimes can ill afford to lose the amounts they wager.

D.No police officer should ever gamble.

E.Many philosophers consider gambling to be immoral.


The answer is D and not A as i thought.The explaination is as follows:
A) This does not provide support for the conclusion that no police officer should ever bet on sports. Some police officers are in places where gambling is legal.
..Now doesnt "in many states and countries" cover the " Some police officers are in places where gambling is legal" part?
Please help
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Delhi,India
Thanked: 1 times

by puneetdua » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:27 am
Hi outreach,

Can you please explain again, i didnt understood the explanation properly, and still not able to digest the OA.

Thanks
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:42 pm
Betting = gambling
Police is not suppose to bet, this will satisfy only when no police is suppose to gamble.

Therefore, D is correct.

Hope this helps!!!
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:00 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:7 members
GMAT Score:690

by LalaB » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:18 pm
I am confused with the word "should". is it ok for strengthening?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:02 am
Followed by:1 members

by babuxavier » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:28 am
IMO D
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:15 pm
This question has a little bit of an LSAT-flavor to it.

On a question like this on the LSAT we would use a transitive math property sort of a set up

This is what we know.

Evidence: Betting on Sports ---> gambling.

Conclusion that we need to reach: Police officers ----> should not bet on sports.

So you see that we already know that betting on sports is gambling. If we can just say that police officers should not gamble then we can say that they should not bet on sports.

Answer choice D makes it quite clear that they should not gamble so that is the one.

Let's recap. If the answer choice D is correct then police officers should not gamble and the stimulus tells us that sports betting is gambling so we reach our conclusion that police officers ---> should not bet on sports.

LalaB - "should" is an appropriate word in strengthen when the conclusion has a should in it. So for that reason D is really the best choice here. We actually need the should in order to reach our "should" conclusion.

Hope it helps...

David
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1