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

Redeem

Evaluate

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Rourkela Odisha India
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:650

Evaluate

by akash singhal » Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:06 pm
Most cable television companies currently require customers to subscribe to packages of channels, but consumer groups have recently proposed legislation that would force the companies to offer a la carte pricing. Subscribers would pay less, argue the consumer groups, because they could purchase only the desired channels. However, the cable industry argues that under the current package pricing, popular channels subsidize less-popular ones, providing more options for viewers. For this reason, the industry claims that it is always cheaper for the consumer to purchase many bundled channels than to buy them individually. Which of the following would be most important for the government to determine before deciding whether to require cable television companies to offer a la carte pricing in order to reduce consumer costs?

"¢ Whether the total number of channels offered to consumers would decrease, along with programming diversity,
as a result of the a la carte pricing structure
"¢ Whether advertising revenue for the cable television companies would decrease as a result of the a la carte pricing structure
"¢ Whether the vast majority of consumers would greatly reduce the number of channels purchased if given the
option of purchasing them individually
"¢ Whether cable and satellite companies currently have the ability to buy channels individually from programmers and content providers
"¢ Whether a la carte subscribers would be required to have new television set-top boxes

OE C
Please explain the elimination here.
I find Evaluate questions very tough any approach towards solving them.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:16 am
Hi Akash Singhal,

You're right, Evaluate CR can be challenging, so I want to show you something fun about them. What if we didn't read the entire passage? What if we just read the Conclusion? Let's check this cool shortcut out! :-)

Conclusion: The industry claims that it is always cheaper for the consumer to purchase many bundled channels than to buy them individually.

Conclusion (simplified): Industry says bundle is ALWAYS cheaper than individual channels

Even though we didn't read the rest of this passage, we know it's an Evaluate CR, and in an Evaluate CR, the Conclusion is King!

Question: What should gov't figure out before forcing individual channels?

The correct answer must address the elements of the conclusion.

Prediction: Whether a la carte/individual is CHEAPER for CONSUMERS.

Any answer choice that is not centered around cost effectiveness for the consumer cannot be correct. Distracting wrong answers will bring in pieces of evidence from the passage, but will not focus on the Conclusion.

Let's examine the answer choices, and put a "+", "-", or "?" next to each one based on how well they focus on the ideal of cheapness/affordability for consumers.

A. ? no mention of cheapness, but does mention consumers
B. - no mention of cheapness OR consumers
C. ? no mention of cheapness, but does mention consumers
D. - no mention of cheapness OR consumers
E. - no mention of cheapness OR consumers

Only A and C even mention these key ideas. Let's rephrase each one:

A. A la carte = more channels
C. A la carte = buying fewer

A focuses more on what is offered TO the consumer, but C focuses on the actions of the consumer. Presumably if they can "greatly" reduce the number of channels, they can save $$.

It's pretty amazing how on an Evaluate CR you can sometimes get the correct answer even without reading the entire passage!

Here's the thing: I don't actually recommend this strategy. If you have the time, ALWAYS read the entire passage and break it down using words and symbols on your scratch pad.

The lesson here is just that in Evaluate CR, the conclusion matters a LOT, and many students tend to get lost in the premise in this type of question. So keep your focus on the conclusion and try to grasp its "focus." There's only going to be 1 or 2 answer choices that really focus in on that, so it will make your process of elimination easier.

I hope this helps! :-)

Best,
Vivian
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Rourkela Odisha India
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:650

by akash singhal » Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:02 am
VivianKerr wrote:Hi Akash Singhal,

You're right, Evaluate CR can be challenging, so I want to show you something fun about them. What if we didn't read the entire passage? What if we just read the Conclusion? Let's check this cool shortcut out! :-)

Conclusion: The industry claims that it is always cheaper for the consumer to purchase many bundled channels than to buy them individually.

Conclusion (simplified): Industry says bundle is ALWAYS cheaper than individual channels

Even though we didn't read the rest of this passage, we know it's an Evaluate CR, and in an Evaluate CR, the Conclusion is King!

Question: What should gov't figure out before forcing individual channels?

The correct answer must address the elements of the conclusion.

Prediction: Whether a la carte/individual is CHEAPER for CONSUMERS.

Any answer choice that is not centered around cost effectiveness for the consumer cannot be correct. Distracting wrong answers will bring in pieces of evidence from the passage, but will not focus on the Conclusion.

Let's examine the answer choices, and put a "+", "-", or "?" next to each one based on how well they focus on the ideal of cheapness/affordability for consumers.

A. ? no mention of cheapness, but does mention consumers
B. - no mention of cheapness OR consumers
C. ? no mention of cheapness, but does mention consumers
D. - no mention of cheapness OR consumers
E. - no mention of cheapness OR consumers

Only A and C even mention these key ideas. Let's rephrase each one:

A. A la carte = more channels
C. A la carte = buying fewer

A focuses more on what is offered TO the consumer, but C focuses on the actions of the consumer. Presumably if they can "greatly" reduce the number of channels, they can save $$.

It's pretty amazing how on an Evaluate CR you can sometimes get the correct answer even without reading the entire passage!

Here's the thing: I don't actually recommend this strategy. If you have the time, ALWAYS read the entire passage and break it down using words and symbols on your scratch pad.

The lesson here is just that in Evaluate CR, the conclusion matters a LOT, and many students tend to get lost in the premise in this type of question. So keep your focus on the conclusion and try to grasp its "focus." There's only going to be 1 or 2 answer choices that really focus in on that, so it will make your process of elimination easier.

I hope this helps! :-)

Best,
Vivian





Its a great technique.Can u apply it in the question i am posting below?

Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups were the same before the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels. The answer to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole grains above?
ï‚· Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?
ï‚· Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?
ï‚· Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?
ï‚· Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?
ï‚· Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:31 am
If you're interested, we have a free video on solving Evaluate questions on the GMAT - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... video/1144

Afterwards, here's a practice question - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat- ... video/1198

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:26 pm
Its a great technique.Can u apply it in the question i am posting below?

Scientists have determined that an effective way to lower cholesterol is to eat three servings of whole grains every day. Studies have shown that the cholesterol levels of people who did so were significantly lower after six months than were those of people who did not, even though the cholesterol levels of the two groups were the same before the studies began. Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

The answer to which of the following questions, if true, would be most useful in evaluating the claim about whole grains above?

ï‚· Is it realistic to expect people to eat three servings of whole grains per day?
ï‚· Were the two groups of people in the study involved in the same exercise program?
ï‚· Can the same drop in cholesterol be achieved through medication?
ï‚· Did the study continue to track the subjects beyond six months?
ï‚· Are most consumers aware of the different between whole grains and processed grains?
Glad you enjoy it! :) It's no substitute for reading the entire passage, but it does help show us where our focus and priorities should be when we deal with an Evaluate CR.

Conclusion: Clearly, eating whole grains can have an appreciable effect on cholesterol levels.

Simple Conclusion: Eating WG ---> CL

This is a cause/effect argument, so we expect the correct answer to allow us to either support or cast doubt on this conclusion. In cause/effect, there are some common ways to weaken:

-showing an alt. cause
-showing Y causes X, not X causes Y

Prediction: Whether WG --> C, or it is reverse, or perhaps an alt. cause for C

What answer choices focus on their CAUSE/EFFECT dynamic?

A. - (not about WG/CL cause/effect)
B. ? (possible alt. cause: exercise, and NOT WG)
C. ? (perhaps, if true, weakens the WG/CL connection, by providing alt. cause: medication)
D. - (not about WG/CL cause/effect; short term v. long term not part of the Conc.)
E. - (not about WG/CL cause/effect)

It has to be between B and C since they offer alternate causes. So what would have the most effect:

B. YES, they were all in the SAME program.
C. YES, medication can achieve the SAME effect.

Obviously this passage involves a study, and the author's point is that BASED on this study. It doesn't matter that we don't know the full set up on the study.

We know the study's conclusion: the only CAUSE for the lower cholestrol is eating whole grains. C stands OUTSIDE that realm. Whether medication can ALSO offer lower cholesterol doesn't show that WG can/can't do the same.

BUT if there WERE 2 groups in this study and they took the SAME actions, yet different results were achieved, it is likely this is removing an alternate explanation. You cannot say it was exercise that was the cause if both the control group AND the experimental group exercised.

The correct answer is B.

Takeaway
In order to get this Evaluate CR correct, you must understand the idea of control groups in studies, and also understand that in a cause/effect argument, many times what would be MOST useful to evaluate is whether there is a possible alternate explanation.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1