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

Redeem

GMAC paper based tests

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:25 am
Location: MA
Thanked: 1 times

by bww » Sun May 13, 2007 11:27 am
I think the answer is A for #8.

The argument is that in order to faciliate any serious policy discussion about acceptable risk levels, one should always use "explosion" rather than "energetic disassembly."

B states that "energetic disassembly" has yet to be used in these types of discussion. Not a pertinent assumption, if it is an assumption at all.

C is an interesting point. But in any serious discussion, shouldn't an idea be expressed as clearly and concisely as possible? It assumes that what is meant is more important than how it is said. But the argument reads that how something is said affects what is meant. So, C could actually work against the argument. "Explosion" and "energetic disassmbly" are essentially the same thing (i.e. what is said), but stated through differing use of words (i.e. how it is put into words).

D is possibly the next best answer, but simply out of scope.

E is not a pertinent assumption.

A addresses part of the argument directly. In the Q stem it reads that use of "explosion" elicits desirable reactions. So, for the purpose of a serious policy discussion, it must be assumed that these desirable reactions are more useful and substantive than undesirable reactions.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:25 am
Location: MA
Thanked: 1 times

by bww » Sun May 13, 2007 11:49 am
Best answer is probably E for 3, although all answers seem a bit off...

The trick is in the first two sentences of the Q stem. We learn that women were "as likely" to win elections as men, but only 15% of the candidates were women. This implies that there is a disconnect between women who are likely to run and women to actually run for election. Argument concludes that women do not win elections because they can't win them, but simply because they do not wish to run.

A could weaken the conclusion--proportion of women who lost reelection was less than proportion of male counterparts--in that women did indeed wish to run and did. But it is not sufficiently relevant.

B is not relevant either. Few women run against other women--does not weaken the conclusion, and could actually support the conclusion (by saying that so few women find themselves running against other women because so many women do not wish to run).

C seems to directly support the conclusion.

D is entirely not relevant. Says that proportion of women at local offices is smaller than proportion of women at state/national offices.

E is best because it directly attacks the argument and conclusion. From the opening statements we learn that women are capable of winning, but only so few actually run. The conclusion is that women simply don't want to run. But from E we have that women do indeed want to run but don't because they cannot raise adequate campaign funding. Thus, there are fewer candidates, and so proportionally fewer women win elections than do men. It may seem slightly out of scope, but it is a better answer choice than any of the others.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by mankey » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:15 am
IMO: C and E respectively.

What are the OAs?

Thanks.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members

by zaarathelab » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:57 am
#8 - IMO A

#3 - IMO E

In the first question, all other answer choices deviate from the advantage of using the word explosion.

Similarly, answer choices other than E shift the scope.
Success = Max(Hardwork) + Min(Luck)
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:30 pm
Thanked: 7 times

by santhoshsram » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:15 pm
I would also choose #8 - A and #3 - B

#8
(A) We can try negation. If desirable reactions to the term "explosion" DO NOT outweigh the draw back, if any, arising from the usage of that term, then I interpret it to mean that there isn't really an advantage to using the term and consequently the argument would not hold.

(B) Talks about history of the usage of the two terms - doesn't affect the argument, which is provides a recommendation for future use.

(C) The argument actually implies that "How it is put into words" is more important than "What is said". The whole argument is about using different words that mean the same in order to achieve a desired result.

(D) Talks about the reason people may have for using the term "energetic disassembly". If we try to negate this and say "there may be reasons other than rendering impossible any serious policy discussions concerning explosions". I do not see how that could stand against the argument.

(E) Compares "energetic disassembly" with to kinds of explosion. Again really does not pertain to the argument. We only care if using term "explosion" has an advantage over using the term "energetic disassembly".

#3
Premise
1. Last year women who ran for state and national offices were as likely to win as men.
2. Only 15% of the candidates for these offices were women.

Conclusion: Few women win elections because only few of them WANT TO RUN (or MOST OF THEM DON'T WANT TO RUN), not because they have a difficult winning elections.

(A) If any, this suggests women have difficult winning elections.
(B) Does not seem to attack the conclusion in anyway.
(C) Most women not interested in offices do not run -> again doesn't really hit the conclusion.
(D) Differentiates between proportion of women holding local offices and proportion of women holding state and national offices -> again irrelevant to the argument.
(E) This is more relevant to the conclusion and says that there are MANY women WHO WANT TO RUN (which is contrary to what the conclusion says) but do not run because they do not have adequate financing. By pointing out that there is a different reason to why women do not win elections this weakens the conclusion.

My 2Cents.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1