Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.
c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.
d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.
e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.
Radio stations with radio data system
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
If answer D is negated, in the second part, Will undermine the conclusion. Therefore, I choose it.
Any other thoughts?
Any other thoughts?
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:27 am
- Thanked: 1 times
imo it's A.
To me, D is stating what is already told in the argument - that people without RDS receivers could not listen to the new RDS stations.
The author's bottom line is basically this: since there are no new RDS receivers, there are no new people enjoying the service provided by the new RDS stations.
For this to be true, the author has to assume no new people were reached through the exisitng RDS receivers. Answer A tells us just this: the new stations did not expand the coverage to reach more RDS receiver owners who had not been previously reached.
To me, D is stating what is already told in the argument - that people without RDS receivers could not listen to the new RDS stations.
The author's bottom line is basically this: since there are no new RDS receivers, there are no new people enjoying the service provided by the new RDS stations.
For this to be true, the author has to assume no new people were reached through the exisitng RDS receivers. Answer A tells us just this: the new stations did not expand the coverage to reach more RDS receiver owners who had not been previously reached.
imo D.
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive --> doesn't mean that people without RDS receivers could not listen to the new RDS stations. There are some programs with RDS and some without one.
Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS station --> it's impossible to assume that no new people were reached
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive --> doesn't mean that people without RDS receivers could not listen to the new RDS stations. There are some programs with RDS and some without one.
Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS station --> it's impossible to assume that no new people were reached
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
OA pleaserussland wrote:Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
a. Few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.
c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station's listening area.
d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.
e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
Hurray Ronaldo!!
I am with u .One more for A!!
D just repeats the same what has been stated in the stem!!
I am with u .One more for A!!
D just repeats the same what has been stated in the stem!!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:14 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Thanked: 17 times
A - If this were a true assumption, then as per the argument, the radio count would have increased, which was not the case.
B- Again, if it were true, then the number of radios should have increased.
E is OOS.
out of C and D - chose D, because it says exactly what is stated in the argument. "that radios not equipped to recieve, RDS signals, could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations"
B- Again, if it were true, then the number of radios should have increased.
E is OOS.
out of C and D - chose D, because it says exactly what is stated in the argument. "that radios not equipped to recieve, RDS signals, could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations"
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
pandeyvineet24 wrote:A - If this were a true assumption, then as per the argument, the radio count would have increased, which was not the case.
B- Again, if it were true, then the number of radios should have increased.
E is OOS.
out of C and D - chose D, because it says exactly what is stated in the argument. "that radios not equipped to recieve, RDS signals, could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations"[/quot
Thank You.
I said D, but then some said A and I was trying to perceive it as "eliminating alternate cause for the effect" but could not digest it.
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:11 pm
IMO it's C. The argument states the little increase in the number of Verlanders receiving the special programs is probably due to the same number of RDS equipped radios in 1994 and 1996. Negating C provides alternate reason why the number of Verlanders receiving the special programs could not increase i.e. another cause. (the author must believe that station's listening area is not a factor).
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
Negating a negated answer is a weak approachThe Apprentice wrote:IMO it's C. The argument states the little increase in the number of Verlanders receiving the special programs is probably due to the same number of RDS equipped radios in 1994 and 1996. Negating C provides alternate reason why the number of Verlanders receiving the special programs could not increase i.e. another cause. (the author must believe that station's listening area is not a factor).
You need to eliminate alternate causes for the effect, not show one.
Choice d shows that when the cause occuers the effect occurs. Just like you do with strenthening questions.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
Although D seems to be a restatement of the conclusion in the stimulus, it is still a valid approach here.
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:11 pm
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:05 pm
It's a VeritasPrep Question, the OA is A.
Although, I choose D initially. But later gave A a real thought, as stated earlier D just repeats the same prompt. We wouldn't assume anything already stated, not in this GMAT world.
Although, I choose D initially. But later gave A a real thought, as stated earlier D just repeats the same prompt. We wouldn't assume anything already stated, not in this GMAT world.