Professor Alban

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
Thanked: 56 times

Professor Alban

by ssmiles08 » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:48 pm
No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term. Moreover, the only language classes being taught next term are advanced ones. So it is untrue that both of the French classes Professor Alban will be teaching next term will be introductory level classes.

The pattern of reasoning displayed in the argument above is most closely paralleled by that in which one of the following arguments?

A) The Morrison Building will be fully occupied by May and since if a building is occupied by May the new tax rates apply to it, the Morrison Building will be taxed according to the new rates.

B) The revised tax code does not apply at all to buildings built before 1900, and only the first section of the revised code applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920, so the revised code does not apply to the Norton Building, since it was built in 1873.

C) All property on Overton Road will be reassessed for tax purposes by the end of the year and the Elnor Company headquarters is on Overton Road, so Elnor's property taxes will be higher next year.

D) New buildings that include public space are exempt from city taxes for two years and all new buildings in the city's Alton district are exempt for five years, so the building with the large public space that was recently completed in Alton will not be subject to city taxes next year.

E) Since according to recent statute, a building that is exempt from property taxes is charged for city water at a special rate, and hospitals are exempt from property taxes, Founder's Hospital will be charged for city water at the special rate.

Please do provide your reasoning's as well. I will post the OA after some discussions.
You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:12 am
Thanked: 8 times

by cata1yst » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:03 pm
Geez this is tough...B or E...

IMO E.

Statement 1---->Statement 2---->Statement 1 and Statement 2 are combined to get a resultant statement. I think E exhibits this

Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:04 pm
Location: Tokyo
Thanked: 81 times
GMAT Score:680

by tohellandback » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:09 pm
IMO with calculated risk, D
explanation:
in the question stem, the second argument itself is sufficient for the conclusion. also it supersedes the 1st argument in such a way that the first argument has no importance anymore

choice D:

1st argument: new buildings with public space do not need to pay taxes for 2 years.
2nd argument: new buildings do not need to pay taxes for 5 years
clearly the 2nd argument makes the 1st one irrelevant.

but I hope I don't get a question like this on the D-day
The powers of two are bloody impolite!!

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 1 times

by bignasty666 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:18 am
now that is a funked up q..is it b? :twisted:

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:30 am
would go for B.
the two conditions given in the stimulus is more in line with B. the two conditions relate to two different aspects.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:36 am
Thanked: 1 times

by graghukalyan » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:28 am
sooper question.

Finally boiled down to B & E.
I think acc. to the question, the conclusion goes "So, it is untrue.." gives a bit of taking an obligatory decision.

I guess E exhibits something similar to that.

IMHO - E.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by ogbeni » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:48 am
Wow! Where is this question from? I'm dizzy from it :(

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:12 am
Thanked: 8 times

by cata1yst » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:06 am
ogbeni wrote:Wow! Where is this question from? I'm dizzy from it :(
Like everyone else said...I pray I don't get a question like this on D-Day...unless of course I am cruising along towards a 45 split in verbal than a question like this is okay! :lol:

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by ssmiles08 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:47 am
LOL this is from the Powerscore GMAT critical reasoning bible.

Congrats to the only one who got it right; tohellandback :) OA is D

I picked B too the first time, but the book said something along the lines that the stimulus gives us two totally unrelated premises and the conclusion is derived from both of those premises.


B) while having the same logic and reasoning as the stimulus, the conclusion only rests on the first premise and has no bearing to the second premise. Therefore it is incorrect.

I don't have the book with me right now, I will post why (E) is incorrect later on when I have a chance.
You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by ssmiles08 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:20 pm
OEs:

Stimulus breakdown:

Premise 1: No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term

Premise 2: Moreover, the only language classes being taught next term are advanced ones.

Conclusion: So it is untrue that both of the French classes Professor Alban will be teaching next term will be introductory level classes


Answer choice B is incorrect b/c only the first premise in this answer choice proves the conclusion. The second premise is irrelevant to the conclusion. Therefore this answer choice is incorrect. Also this answer choice is a suspect b/c the conclusion is different from that in the stimulus

Answer choice E is incorrect b/c the answer is very similar to answer choice A and contains a structure which is different from that of the stimulus. Since premises work together and neither proves the conclusion alone, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer D is the correct answer. As with the argument in the stimulus, each premise in this answer choice separately supports the conclusion.

The negative term in the conclusion of the answer choice is not a factor that should be considered. For the purposes of matching conclusion, "will be" and "will not be" are identical.
You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:03 am
Received a PM asking me to respond.

Question stem: mimic the argument. Ugh. Probably my least-favorite CR type. These take way too much time.

French dept: teachers can teach only 1 intro class in any 1 term.
Next term, only advanced classes are being offered.

Therefore: Prof A can't be teaching 2 intro level French classes next term.

Strip it down:
1) there's a general restriction for any term
2) there's a specific restriction for next term; the specific restriction essentially makes the general restriction unnecessary (because it eliminates the criterion - intro classes - required for the general restriction)
3) Prof A's next term courseload has to fit the specific restriction and the general restriction.

A) if building occupied by May --> new tax rates. M building will be fully occupied by May --> new tax rates for M building. Hmm. So IF the restriction (occupied) applies, then something else happens. The original argument doesn't hinge on "if--> then." Eliminate.
B) revised tax does not apply before 1900. some revisions apply to 1900-1920. N = 1873, so code doesn't apply. Hmm. The middle sentence (1900-1920) doesn't apply to the specific situation (N-1873). In our original, both restrictions applied. Eliminate.
C) Overton props reassessed this year, Elnor is on Overton, therefore... er, therefore Elnor will get reassessed. But this says Elnor's taxes will be higher. Don't know that - could be lower or stay the same. Original argument's conclusion was actually a valid conclusion. Eliminate.
D) public space new buildings = 2 years tax exempt. Alton district new buildings (subset of overall city) = 5 years tax exempt. New public space Alton building built recently = no taxes next year. Hmm. Second restriction makes first restriction unnecessary; second one supercedes first. That sounds familiar. Like this one so far.
E) building exempt from prop tax gets special rate for water. Hosp exempt from prop tax. Therefore, F's Hosp will get special water rate. We don't have the "one restriction supercedes the other" here. Eliminate.

D.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:07 am

by micheal_kr » Sun May 15, 2016 11:35 pm
I'm pretty confident that E is correct answer