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

Redeem

CR question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:58 pm

CR question

by Derek1988 » Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:09 am
A recent university study indicated that students who receive full scholarships tend to maintain higher grade point averages than do students who must take out loans or work to finance school. The study concluded that scholarships enable students to achieve high grade point averages by alleviating the stress related to financial concerns and freeing up students' time to study more.

The study's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A)Students who take out loans maintain higher grade point averages than those who work to finance school.
(B)Finance-related stress affects student performance in a manner similar to that of restricted study time.
(C)Students who must work to pay for their studies cannot maintain high grade point averages.
(D)High grade point averages were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based.
(E)Controlling stress level is less important to student performance than is intensive studying.

Anyone can help plz?

OA is D
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
Thanked: 118 times
Followed by:33 members
GMAT Score:710

by bblast » Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:54 am
this is an example of cause and effect reasoning :

to attack such question look for the opposite answer(if u are asked to weaken), or look to see if the author mistook the relation between the 2 things happnening.

However, in this case u need to strengthen the reasoning so go as below :

here the author says : students who receive full scholarships tend to maintain higher grade point
conclusion : scholarships enable students to achieve high grade point averages

see option D: High grade point averages were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based


this implies that every student was equally likely to receive a scholarship ,
hence D.

or in other words :
there were some other criterion for scholarship. (And thus scholarship>>>led to>>>higher grades and not the opposite)



this question is a bit tricky however u can easily get rid of options a,b and E.
Last edited by bblast on Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:45 pm
Location: Boston
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:720

by stormier » Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:47 am
Derek1988 wrote:A recent university study indicated that students who receive full scholarships tend to maintain higher grade point averages than do students who must take out loans or work to finance school. The study concluded that scholarships enable students to achieve high grade point averages by alleviating the stress related to financial concerns and freeing up students' time to study more.

The study's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

The basic rule of assumption question -> if the assumption is negated (or reversed) the argument should fall apart.

(A)Students who take out loans maintain higher grade point averages than those who work to finance school.

Incorrect. The argument is about comparison between the Students receiving full scholarships and students who either take loans or work for their tuition. It is not about comparison among the students who finance their loans in different ways (loan vs work).

(B)Finance-related stress affects student performance in a manner similar to that of restricted study time.

Incorrect. This is a tricky choice. One may think that reduced study time would mean lower grades for students who are stressed. Let's try and negate this and say - finance-relate stress does not affect student performance in a manner similar to that of restricted study time. Would the argument fall apart ? The answer is no. Finance related stress may affect the student performance in other manners, such as lower concentration (not neccessarily reduced study time)

(C)Students who must work to pay for their studies cannot maintain high grade point averages.

Incorrect. Its vague. What's high GPA ? the argument is about comparison - that of highER GPA of scholarship students.

(D)High grade point averages were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based.

Correct. Let's negate this one to say that - Scholarships were awarded based on high GPA - meaning students who already had higher GPAs received scholarships, and hence the pre-existing high GPAs caused them to receive the scholarship. The scholarships did not cause them to receive higher grades. The argument falls apart. Thus correct.
(E)Controlling stress level is less important to student performance than is intensive studying.

Incorrect. Again negate it - What if controlling stress level is more important to student perfromance than intensive studying ? The argument can still hold.
Anyone can help plz?

OA is D
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1