Good job guys! I am glad to see that this one is still making the rounds...
m.abdulk - keep at it you will get more right!
"needthis" You have chosen a really great screen name! I think most people on this board need to get a score on the GMAT and you come out and say it. Love it!
You're fired!
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Hi david, I am still confused about C .David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is B.
Nice work guys!
Here is the official explanation:
The conclusion that the principal should be fired is weakened by all choices except (B). Answer (A) provides a criteria other than profit according to which the principal should be evaluated. Answer (C) suggests that the principal had no part in the decision to build the new building. Answer (D) suggests that the lack of revenue in 2010 resulted from a cause other than the new building expense. Answer (E) suggests that the lack of profit in 2010 may be short-term, and that revenues will continue to increase as more families are drawn by the new facility. Answer (B) is correct because it does not absolve the principal. It demonstrates a benefit of the new facility but provides no relevant information about the principal's responsibility or lack thereof for the school's financial problems.
Any Questions?
It is true that the new principal had no role to play in the huge expenditure incurred over the construction .Has the expenditure incurred over the construction been mentioned purposely so that it can serve as a joint reason for the school's failure to make profit.
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
Yes the construction is mentioned as a primary reason that the school could not make a profit. Since the principal is being fired for the failure to make a profit, then it would weaken the argument if we know that the decision to build, cost of building, etc. are not the principal's fault.
Before going into answer choices, my thinking was:
1. What if it was planned to get profit after a long term?
2. what if princi didnt have any hand on the $ spent?
Now, lets check answers:
A.W
B.Not related
C.No problem
D. Another reason. So answer?
E.Strengthen?
1. What if it was planned to get profit after a long term?
2. what if princi didnt have any hand on the $ spent?
Now, lets check answers:
A.W
B.Not related
C.No problem
D. Another reason. So answer?
E.Strengthen?
-
immaculatesahai
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:14 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:3 members
B is completely irrelevant to the point at issue. B is the answer.
BTW, love the topic of the question. You're fired !!! lol
BTW, love the topic of the question. You're fired !!! lol
-
tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members
Very confused between choice B and C, but now I understand. Thank for explanation.David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is B.
Nice work guys!
Here is the official explanation:
The conclusion that the principal should be fired is weakened by all choices except (B). Answer (A) provides a criteria other than profit according to which the principal should be evaluated. Answer (C) suggests that the principal had no part in the decision to build the new building. Answer (D) suggests that the lack of revenue in 2010 resulted from a cause other than the new building expense. Answer (E) suggests that the lack of profit in 2010 may be short-term, and that revenues will continue to increase as more families are drawn by the new facility. Answer (B) is correct because it does not absolve the principal. It demonstrates a benefit of the new facility but provides no relevant information about the principal's responsibility or lack thereof for the school's financial problems.
Any Questions?
-
ArunangsuSahu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
(B).It tells nothing about the profit. So loss or gain can not be determined on behalf of the Principal.. Therefore it neither weakens nor it strengthens
-
Gaurav 2013-fall
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
- GMAT Score:700
-
Rastis
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:06 am
- Location: Washington, DC
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:500
I completely disagree. The answer should be C. The premise concludes that the new additions were ultimately intended for some sort of profit/revenue purposes. Further, the premise states that the principal should be fired based on the loss of profit. Answer choice C clearly states why you shouldn't fire the principle. Answer choice B brings in a whole bunch of information that is so far out of scope that it's unreal. Someone please explain to me how C is not the answer.
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
Rastis -
That is my favorite way to miss a question! They always get me with the EXCEPT. I have taken to writing it down and circling it just so I don't forget.
That is my favorite way to miss a question! They always get me with the EXCEPT. I have taken to writing it down and circling it just so I don't forget.
-
surmilsehgal
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:38 am
