Dear GMAT Ninja team, I recently took the gmat and scored a 700! It could always be better, but I’m indebted to all of y’all for the advice and tips. If you need me to give any sort of testimonial, I’d be more than happy to. Thanks again for all the fantastic content!
For Q2 I was totally lost as to why (B) was the correct answer instead of (E). After reading the passage multiple times, I came to realise that the conclusion is that the ENTIRE cost of the maintenance will have to be paid by increase in general taxes. However, by elimination of costs related to tolls we would be able to pay PART of the maintenance cost. Hence, the ENTIRE cost won’t come out of general taxes but only a PART of it. So B must be true in order for the argument to be valid. If that saved cost is not available for use then the general taxes HAVE to be increased in order to maintain the highways. Took me some time to wrap my head around the idea. Hope this helps!
issue with the 3rd Q.. option E assumes that these "some people" that will carpool or use public transport were not doing so earlier. even the explanation for option E, provided by dana, mentione that "at least some ppl need to CHANGE". this is a make or break assumption. imo, options C & E both have issues. remaining options can be eliminated easily.
Hey Dana, In the 2nd Question- for the last option - if you inverse the sentence then it reads -"if the highway tolls are eliminated , there will be a need to increase the general taxes" This matches staright up with the conclusion. Also the term in the conclusion and option E is "general taxes" Shouldn't E be the right answer then? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks,
Thanks for the questions, Mokshaa! A couple of thoughts: 1) Negating an answer choice can be messy and difficult. It's much more straightforward to deal with the answer choice as written, rather than negating it. Here, we're looking for an option that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up. (E) just doesn't have to be true: any number of things could cause an increase in general taxes (building a school, etc). So, we don't NEED to assume that general taxes won't increase. That's why (E) is not an assumption made by the argument. By contrast, we MUST assume the information in (B). If some money can come from getting rid of the tolls, then the author's argument that the "entire" cost comes from general taxes is completely blown up. 2) You can't really conclude anything just because some of the words match in the conclusion and in answer choice (E). For more on that topic, check out this video on word matching: ua-cam.com/video/L-rfYY0v44s/v-deo.html
if you negate the option then that argument after negation should weaken the argument but in this case if you negate this option it supports the conclusion and therefore it is wrong. Hope you get it!!
Hi! Just an observation for the last question, Answer choice E states that At least some people who receive the coupon for a free meal will sometimes carpool or use public transportation during the next year But what if they are already atleast sometime using public transportation (safe to assume that, given they are citizens of a country with public transport available) in that case wouldnt it be better to go with option C that Most downtown congestion is resulting from people working downtown, which would atleast help in targeting the correct audience to address the problem (i know that it seems like telling a story, but i really need help on this one) thanks
Great explanation of this type of question! I got all three wrong and realized that this type of CR is what I need to improve on. Definitely need to change the way of thinking. Thanks for the help!
Thank you so much for watching, Penny! All of this will get better with time and practice, I promise. Have fun studying, and keep us posted on your progress!
I don't think E) is the correct answer choice in the last question. C) seems to be the most appropriate one. Assume that most of the traffic downtown isn't due to the people who work downtown, then this plan would be useless because it doesn't tackle the demographic that causes most of the traffic congestion, hence would be an ineffective solution to the problem.
Hey! The idea is that we need to reduce congestion. It can be ineffective, but still it will make a difference, even if it's minimal. So thus we can do away with c. However if you look at e, and negate that, it'll lead to some->none and if no-one comes in the use case, the plan will not reduce even the minimal thing. Thus E is the answer
Hi GMAT team, im a bit confused with the Holston example. I dont quite understand from the explanation why E was not the correct answer, since E did mention increase in general taxes, and the author did mention elimination of tolls will cause an increase of taxes. and we're looking at this example right? and we are not considering tax increase from other potential cases independent of this case? do help, i really dont understand why not E.
It's true that the passage mentions an increase in taxes -- but to answer this question, you're not looking for something that's mentioned in the passage. Instead, you're looking for the answer choice that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up. Those are two very different things. So, does (E) absolutely HAVE to be true for the argument to hold up? No, it doesn't, and this is where those other uses of general taxes come into play. If the general taxes are raised for OTHER reasons (schools, etc), then the argument still stands. So, it doesn't HAVE to be true that "if the highway tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase the general taxes." You absolutely COULD need to raise general taxes (again, to pay for a school or something), even if the highway tolls stay in place. Think of it from the author's perspective: is he/she assuming anything about general taxes as a whole? No, he/she doesn't weigh in on tons of reasons that general taxes might increase. So we can't say that he/she is making the assumption stated in (E). I hope that helps!
the answer to the last question is a bit tricky; if the city has 1000 people and 600 signs, but only five implement what is required, then the plan will fail. I lean towards (C) because it is the users of the road that course traffic congestion. If we negate the answer given, will it change the meaning or agree more with the required answer....
@@shadrackbadia1158 In regards to (E): remember that the goal is to "reduce traffic congestion." That means that ANY reduction is a success. So, even if only 5 people switch to public transportation, as you've suggested, that would mean that the program achieved its goal. It's counterintuitive, but that's why it's so important to look at the exact language of the passage! As for (C): We're not looking for something that "agrees" with the argument. We're looking for something that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up. (C) doesn't hit that mark. As long as people who work downtown cause SOME of the congestion, then the plan could succeed. We don't need MOST of the traffic to be caused by downtown workers. Because (C) doesn't absolutely have to be true for the argument to hold up, we can eliminate (C). I hope that helps!
For question 2, I feel like the answer (B) would make more sense of the question was something like: which of the following assumptions can be an inference from the argument? I did understand what Dana said, but the passages said nothing about the saved costs associated with eliminating the tolls. So how can that be an assumption made by the argument? On the other hand the passage literally said if tolls are eliminated, then more general tax. I can simply say if tolls are not eliminated, then no increase in general tax which is E
Unfortunately, you can't leap from "if no tolls, then increase in general tax" to "if tolls, then no increase in general tax." Consider this example: - "If you don't eat ice cream, then you'll be sad." Can you leap to "if you DO eat ice cream, you WON'T be sad"? The issue here is that you don't know about what other factors impact your mood. Maybe you eat ice cream, but as you're walking down the street with your delicious cone you trip and break your leg, which makes you sad. Eating ice cream didn't GUARANTEE your happiness at all, because nothing says that ONLY ice cream impacts your mood. Similarly, nothing says that ONLY the highways impact general taxes. So even if the general taxes don't increase because of the highway issue, there could be many, many things that raise the general taxes anyway. So, we don't NEED to assume that the general taxes won't be increased if the tolls remain in place. That's why (E) is not an assumption made by the argument. As for (B): an assumption is, by definition, something not mentioned in the passage. So you really can't use the fact that it's not mentioned to eliminate an answer choice. Here, the author argues that the ENTIRE cost must come from an increase in general taxes. The unstated assumption is that there are NO other places to get that money. So, we have to assume that the money can't come from the source discussed in option (B). (B) is the correct answer to the second question. I hope that helps!
The GOAL of the plan is to reduce traffic. The plan itself is to encourage people to sign the pledge and to offer those people coupons. I hope that answers your question!
still don't get how the option B is the answer to the Q2. How do we know at all that there are costs associated with the toll collection? How do we know they exist? There is no such info in the passage.
Hi GMAT Ninja Team, I am a bit confused with the last question. The passage says that there is an incentive for the people to car pool. If people do not like that incentive, the plan can fail. So option B looks good. With Option E- At least some people who receive the free coupons....will sometime car pool- Now this is what the plan hopes to achieve. How can we assume this to be true? Need some clarification on these two points. Thanks a lot in advance.
Hi @GMATNinjaTutoring great video. Just had a small doubt in something you said in the video. You said most means more than half. Which logically makes sense to me too. But if you think about it in a different sense such as - Contributions to party fund- Person 1: 40% Person 2-13: 5% So here although people 2-13 contribute a total of 60%. Person 1 is still contributing the _ most_ money. Even though it’s less than half. This may be a nit pick but since the GMAT is supposed to be a very literal exam, I just wanna make sure if I should just assume most to be more than half in any SC or CR questions.
Sorry for my slow response, Abdur! To find the heart of the passage, it can be helpful to ask the following questions: 1) What, at the end of the day, is the author trying to persuade me of? Example: "We should go to the beach because it is nice out." Here, the author is trying to persuade you to go to the beach. The other information in the sentence (or passage, on actual CR questions) is there to provide reasoning for the conclusion. 2) When you look at all of the components of the passage, which ones seem to support something else in the passage? Example: "Cake is delicious, beautiful, and fun to make, so cake is the best dessert." Here, the author provide some facts that lead up to an overall conclusion that "cake is the best dessert." If you were to draw arrows from the evidence to the conclusion, all of the arrows would point toward that last statement. Of course, the passages that you see on the test will be longer and more complex than these ones -- but those questions can get you headed in the right direction. For more on finding the heart of the passage, check out this video if you haven't already: ua-cam.com/video/nJZVMFSqvvE/v-deo.html. I hope that helps!
Hello GMAT Ninja Team, In the first question, answer choice A is phrased as: "the second gives a reason for questioning that **support**". So we are questioning the support that is provided by the first bolded statement. So we are questioning: "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". How can we question this? It is a fact. Wouldn't A be the correct answer choice only if it is phrased: "the second gives a reason for questioning that **conclusion**". So, the evidence given by the second bolded statement is questioning the conclusion that: "worrisome rumors must be false". In choice B, it says: "the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish." Why is this incorrect? I could say that the argument seeks to establish that the depositors might be overoptimistic because sometimes corporate execs buy shares in order to dispel negative rumors. Thanks!
Dana addresses all of your questions in the explanation starting from about 4:30. Check that out and let us know if you have any further questions. I hope that helps!
Dear GMAT Ninja team, I think option(E) does not need to be true. Reason : atleast some of the people who receive coupon may walk for their commute and not necessarily use carpool or public transportation. So option (E) is also wrong on the basis that it says "atleast some WILL use carpool''. Any thoughts?
The question asks us for an answer choice that must be true "for the transportation bureau's plan to succeed." That plan specifically asks for people to pledge to carpool or use public transportation. So yes, traffic would be reduced if people walk -- but that's a different plan than the one outlined in the passage. For the specific plan from the passage to work, some people need to sometimes carpool or use public transportation. That's why (E) needs to be true. I hope that helps, and sorry for our slow response, Rohit. Happy new year!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring I chose answer choice C, my rationale is, the question is asking for 'must be true'; then if the traffic in first place is not caused by people working in downtown then even if they all carpool or use public transportation, the traffic will not reduce! can you please help me understanding where am I wrong?
I am not even going to lie.. In regards to question 2, I fail to understand how B is the answer. I do not understand the explanation given. and I initially went with Option E.... the more I check C.R questions, the more I realize there is no consistent pattern as to what each question requires from you.
Let's take a look at the passage to make sure we're on the same page about the argument before we take a look at (B) and (E). The author's conclusion is that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. I've highlighted the word 'entire' there deliberately as it's going to become really important later. The reason provided for this conclusion is that the cost of maintaining the highways comes entirely from revenue generated by the highway tolls. So, the government will have to raise general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways because it will lose its current source of funding if it eliminates the tolls. The author has made an assumption in this argument, and we need to find out what that assumption is to answer this question. If we look at (E) first, we're told that if the tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase general taxes. The argument talks specifically about highway maintenance and doesn't mention any other reason why taxes might need to go up. The government of Holston could be planning new infrastructure projects, welfare increases, or new spending on education needed, for example. While it might be true there would be no need to increase general taxes specifically to pay to maintain the highways, the argument doesn't assume there would be no need *at all* to raise general taxes. This means we can cross out answer choice (E). Answer choice (B) tells us the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with collecting the tolls would not be available to pay for part of the total cost of maintaining the highways. Remeber that the conclusion says that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to come from increases in general taxation. If the government saved some money by not collecting the tolls and made this money available to help pay for some portion of the highway maintenance budget, however small, then we would not need an increase in general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways. The argument does assume that this money would not be available to help pay for maintaining the highways, which is why (B) is the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
For Q2, (E) reads: if the highway tolls are not eliminated; there will be no need to increase the general taxes. and the author concludes that the cost of maintenance of tolls will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. Wouldn't (E) imply that all other reasons for an increase in general taxes are completely ignored? It seems to me that this would be a central assumption for making the authors conclusion work. After all if tolls are not eliminated, the general taxes could still increase due to whatever many reasons. So, the author assumes that there are no other reasons for taxes to increase besides the elimination of the toll. Could you help understand why this logic is flawed? As through process of elimination I also eliminated B. My logic was this: (B) states that the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with toll collection would not be available to pay part of the total cost of maintaining the highways. Let's say that that total money saved by eliminating costs was 100 and the total cost for maintaining was 150 - that would leave an additional 50 to be paid for by taxes. This means that despite only a part of the money being available the taxes would still increase.
Let's take a look at the passage to make sure we're on the same page about the argument before we take a look at (B) and (E). The author's conclusion is that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. I've highlighted the word 'entire' there deliberately as it's going to become really important later. The reason provided for this conclusion is that the cost of maintaining the highways comes entirely from revenue generated by the highway tolls. So, the government will have to raise general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways because it will lose its current source of funding if it eliminates the tolls. The author has made an assumption in this argument, and we need to find out what that assumption is to answer this question. If we look at (E) first, we're told that if the tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase general taxes. The argument talks specifically about highway maintenance and doesn't mention any other reason why taxes might need to go up. The government of Holston could be planning new infrastructure projects, welfare increases, or new spending on education, for example. While it might be true there would be no need to increase general taxes specifically to pay to maintain the highways, the argument doesn't assume there would be no need at all to raise general taxes. This means we can cross out answer choice (E). Answer choice (B) tells us the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with collecting the tolls would not be available to pay for part of the total cost of maintaining the highways. Remember that the conclusion says that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to come from increases in general taxation. If the government saved some money by not collecting the tolls and made this money available to help pay for some portion of the highway maintenance budget, however small, then we would not need an increase in general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways. The argument does assume that this money would not be available to help pay for maintaining the highways, which is why (B) is the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
You're absolutely right that you should stick to the exact language on the page when you're breaking down an argument or reading an answer choice. To actually reason your way through an answer choice, though, you do need to bring your "whole brain" into the discussion and think through the connections between passage, the question, and the answer choices. In the last question, we're looking for an answer choice that must be true in order for the plan to achieve its goal. So, you have to look at each option and ask yourself, "does this thing have to be true?" If you can think of a case in which it doesn't have to be true, then you can eliminate that answer choice. For instance, you can eliminate answer choice (B) because people don't have to PREFER a restaurant to want a free meal there. That's very different from adding in personal assumptions to the passage itself. The goal is to first have a very precise understanding of the exact information on the page, and then to think critically through the implications of each answer choice. I hope that helps!
Dear GMAT Ninja team, I recently took the gmat and scored a 700! It could always be better, but I’m indebted to all of y’all for the advice and tips. If you need me to give any sort of testimonial, I’d be more than happy to. Thanks again for all the fantastic content!
May I ask how long did you prepare for the exam? And generally how many hours per day or week? Thank you.
I can tell you its taking me at least 6-8 months 5hrs per day with a starting point of 430. it varies for people@@shirleyeriko6012
For Q2 I was totally lost as to why (B) was the correct answer instead of (E).
After reading the passage multiple times, I came to realise that the conclusion is that the ENTIRE cost of the maintenance will have to be paid by increase in general taxes.
However, by elimination of costs related to tolls we would be able to pay PART of the maintenance cost. Hence, the ENTIRE cost won’t come out of general taxes but only a PART of it.
So B must be true in order for the argument to be valid. If that saved cost is not available for use then the general taxes HAVE to be increased in order to maintain the highways.
Took me some time to wrap my head around the idea. Hope this helps!
Thanks for explaining. This was helpful.
but its written that money will NOT be available to pay part of the total cost??
22:16 - I agree, free food for the win! Thank you Dana, for another amazing video!! :)
issue with the 3rd Q.. option E assumes that these "some people" that will carpool or use public transport were not doing so earlier. even the explanation for option E, provided by dana, mentione that "at least some ppl need to CHANGE". this is a make or break assumption.
imo, options C & E both have issues. remaining options can be eliminated easily.
The last question was brutal, each option seemed right lol
True.
I found the second even more disturbing
Hey Dana,
In the 2nd Question- for the last option - if you inverse the sentence then it reads -"if the highway tolls are eliminated , there will be a need to increase the general taxes"
This matches staright up with the conclusion.
Also the term in the conclusion and option E is "general taxes"
Shouldn't E be the right answer then?
Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Option E is kind of just a statement rather than an assumption author made. Option E could be true but is not an assumption that the author made
Thanks for the questions, Mokshaa! A couple of thoughts:
1) Negating an answer choice can be messy and difficult. It's much more straightforward to deal with the answer choice as written, rather than negating it.
Here, we're looking for an option that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up. (E) just doesn't have to be true: any number of things could cause an increase in general taxes (building a school, etc). So, we don't NEED to assume that general taxes won't increase. That's why (E) is not an assumption made by the argument.
By contrast, we MUST assume the information in (B). If some money can come from getting rid of the tolls, then the author's argument that the "entire" cost comes from general taxes is completely blown up.
2) You can't really conclude anything just because some of the words match in the conclusion and in answer choice (E). For more on that topic, check out this video on word matching: ua-cam.com/video/L-rfYY0v44s/v-deo.html
if you negate the option then that argument after negation should weaken the argument but in this case if you negate this option it supports the conclusion and therefore it is wrong. Hope you get it!!
Hi! Just an observation for the last question,
Answer choice E states that At least some people who receive the coupon for a free meal will sometimes carpool or use public transportation during the next year
But what if they are already atleast sometime using public transportation (safe to assume that, given they are citizens of a country with public transport available)
in that case wouldnt it be better to go with option C
that Most downtown congestion is resulting from people working downtown, which would atleast help in targeting the correct audience to address the problem (i know that it seems like telling a story, but i really need help on this one)
thanks
Great explanation of this type of question! I got all three wrong and realized that this type of CR is what I need to improve on. Definitely need to change the way of thinking. Thanks for the help!
Thank you so much for watching, Penny! All of this will get better with time and practice, I promise.
Have fun studying, and keep us posted on your progress!
I don't think E) is the correct answer choice in the last question. C) seems to be the most appropriate one. Assume that most of the traffic downtown isn't due to the people who work downtown, then this plan would be useless because it doesn't tackle the demographic that causes most of the traffic congestion, hence would be an ineffective solution to the problem.
Hey! The idea is that we need to reduce congestion. It can be ineffective, but still it will make a difference, even if it's minimal. So thus we can do away with c. However if you look at e, and negate that, it'll lead to some->none and if no-one comes in the use case, the plan will not reduce even the minimal thing. Thus E is the answer
Hi GMAT team, im a bit confused with the Holston example. I dont quite understand from the explanation why E was not the correct answer, since E did mention increase in general taxes, and the author did mention elimination of tolls will cause an increase of taxes. and we're looking at this example right? and we are not considering tax increase from other potential cases independent of this case? do help, i really dont understand why not E.
It's true that the passage mentions an increase in taxes -- but to answer this question, you're not looking for something that's mentioned in the passage. Instead, you're looking for the answer choice that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up. Those are two very different things.
So, does (E) absolutely HAVE to be true for the argument to hold up?
No, it doesn't, and this is where those other uses of general taxes come into play. If the general taxes are raised for OTHER reasons (schools, etc), then the argument still stands. So, it doesn't HAVE to be true that "if the highway tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase the general taxes." You absolutely COULD need to raise general taxes (again, to pay for a school or something), even if the highway tolls stay in place.
Think of it from the author's perspective: is he/she assuming anything about general taxes as a whole? No, he/she doesn't weigh in on tons of reasons that general taxes might increase. So we can't say that he/she is making the assumption stated in (E).
I hope that helps!
the answer to the last question is a bit tricky; if the city has 1000 people and 600 signs, but only five implement what is required, then the plan will fail. I lean towards (C) because it is the users of the road that course traffic congestion. If we negate the answer given, will it change the meaning or agree more with the required answer....
If it was written as: " if ALL the people who receive....." then I would support the argument that validates this answer,
@@shadrackbadia1158 In regards to (E): remember that the goal is to "reduce traffic congestion." That means that ANY reduction is a success. So, even if only 5 people switch to public transportation, as you've suggested, that would mean that the program achieved its goal. It's counterintuitive, but that's why it's so important to look at the exact language of the passage!
As for (C): We're not looking for something that "agrees" with the argument. We're looking for something that MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up. (C) doesn't hit that mark. As long as people who work downtown cause SOME of the congestion, then the plan could succeed. We don't need MOST of the traffic to be caused by downtown workers.
Because (C) doesn't absolutely have to be true for the argument to hold up, we can eliminate (C).
I hope that helps!
@@GMATNinjaTutoringThanks for explaining this makes sense now. But holy cow is it tricky, I hate it!!!
For question 2, I feel like the answer (B) would make more sense of the question was something like: which of the following assumptions can be an inference from the argument?
I did understand what Dana said, but the passages said nothing about the saved costs associated with eliminating the tolls. So how can that be an assumption made by the argument? On the other hand the passage literally said if tolls are eliminated, then more general tax. I can simply say if tolls are not eliminated, then no increase in general tax which is E
Unfortunately, you can't leap from "if no tolls, then increase in general tax" to "if tolls, then no increase in general tax."
Consider this example:
- "If you don't eat ice cream, then you'll be sad."
Can you leap to "if you DO eat ice cream, you WON'T be sad"?
The issue here is that you don't know about what other factors impact your mood. Maybe you eat ice cream, but as you're walking down the street with your delicious cone you trip and break your leg, which makes you sad. Eating ice cream didn't GUARANTEE your happiness at all, because nothing says that ONLY ice cream impacts your mood.
Similarly, nothing says that ONLY the highways impact general taxes. So even if the general taxes don't increase because of the highway issue, there could be many, many things that raise the general taxes anyway. So, we don't NEED to assume that the general taxes won't be increased if the tolls remain in place. That's why (E) is not an assumption made by the argument.
As for (B): an assumption is, by definition, something not mentioned in the passage. So you really can't use the fact that it's not mentioned to eliminate an answer choice.
Here, the author argues that the ENTIRE cost must come from an increase in general taxes. The unstated assumption is that there are NO other places to get that money. So, we have to assume that the money can't come from the source discussed in option (B).
(B) is the correct answer to the second question.
I hope that helps!
what is the "plan" in the last questions?
1. Is it to reduce traffic?
or
2. is it to see how many people carpool when offered a free meal?
The GOAL of the plan is to reduce traffic. The plan itself is to encourage people to sign the pledge and to offer those people coupons.
I hope that answers your question!
How am I supposed to do all of that thinking and analysis in under 1.5min?😩
still don't get how the option B is the answer to the Q2. How do we know at all that there are costs associated with the toll collection? How do we know they exist? There is no such info in the passage.
That's why its an assumption as its not mentioned.
Hi GMAT Ninja Team,
I am a bit confused with the last question. The passage says that there is an incentive for the people to car pool. If people do not like that incentive, the plan can fail. So option B looks good.
With Option E- At least some people who receive the free coupons....will sometime car pool- Now this is what the plan hopes to achieve. How can we assume this to be true?
Need some clarification on these two points.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Hi @GMATNinjaTutoring great video.
Just had a small doubt in something you said in the video.
You said most means more than half.
Which logically makes sense to me too. But if you think about it in a different sense such as -
Contributions to party fund-
Person 1: 40%
Person 2-13: 5%
So here although people 2-13 contribute a total of 60%.
Person 1 is still contributing the _ most_ money. Even though it’s less than half.
This may be a nit pick but since the GMAT is supposed to be a very literal exam, I just wanna make sure if I should just assume most to be more than half in any SC or CR questions.
Dana looks like Pam from The Office.😅
Great playlist though. 👍
I think we're going to ask Dana to wear a Pam costume for Halloween this year...
She sounds like her too! haha
Really helpful :)
Hey Dana , I have a hard time finding the main conclusions in the CR passages. Any advice ?
Sorry for my slow response, Abdur!
To find the heart of the passage, it can be helpful to ask the following questions:
1) What, at the end of the day, is the author trying to persuade me of?
Example: "We should go to the beach because it is nice out." Here, the author is trying to persuade you to go to the beach. The other information in the sentence (or passage, on actual CR questions) is there to provide reasoning for the conclusion.
2) When you look at all of the components of the passage, which ones seem to support something else in the passage?
Example: "Cake is delicious, beautiful, and fun to make, so cake is the best dessert." Here, the author provide some facts that lead up to an overall conclusion that "cake is the best dessert." If you were to draw arrows from the evidence to the conclusion, all of the arrows would point toward that last statement.
Of course, the passages that you see on the test will be longer and more complex than these ones -- but those questions can get you headed in the right direction.
For more on finding the heart of the passage, check out this video if you haven't already: ua-cam.com/video/nJZVMFSqvvE/v-deo.html.
I hope that helps!
Please discuss arguments by speaking the text and describing their roles in detail. Too much use of 'this' and 'that' isn't the best to follow.
Hello GMAT Ninja Team,
In the first question, answer choice A is phrased as: "the second gives a reason for questioning that **support**". So we are questioning the support that is provided by the first bolded statement. So we are questioning: "several of a bank's top executives have been buying shares in their own bank". How can we question this? It is a fact.
Wouldn't A be the correct answer choice only if it is phrased: "the second gives a reason for questioning that **conclusion**". So, the evidence given by the second bolded statement is questioning the conclusion that: "worrisome rumors must be false".
In choice B, it says: "the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish." Why is this incorrect? I could say that the argument seeks to establish that the depositors might be overoptimistic because sometimes corporate execs buy shares in order to dispel negative rumors.
Thanks!
Dana addresses all of your questions in the explanation starting from about 4:30. Check that out and let us know if you have any further questions.
I hope that helps!
Dear GMAT Ninja team, I think option(E) does not need to be true. Reason : atleast some of the people who receive coupon may walk for their commute and not necessarily use carpool or public transportation. So option (E) is also wrong on the basis that it says "atleast some WILL use carpool''. Any thoughts?
The question asks us for an answer choice that must be true "for the transportation bureau's plan to succeed." That plan specifically asks for people to pledge to carpool or use public transportation.
So yes, traffic would be reduced if people walk -- but that's a different plan than the one outlined in the passage. For the specific plan from the passage to work, some people need to sometimes carpool or use public transportation. That's why (E) needs to be true.
I hope that helps, and sorry for our slow response, Rohit. Happy new year!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring I chose answer choice C, my rationale is, the question is asking for 'must be true'; then if the traffic in first place is not caused by people working in downtown then even if they all carpool or use public transportation, the traffic will not reduce! can you please help me understanding where am I wrong?
Hi Dana, quick question please, why do you use a wired headset when you use a wireless clip on mic?
I am not even going to lie.. In regards to question 2, I fail to understand how B is the answer. I do not understand the explanation given. and I initially went with Option E.... the more I check C.R questions, the more I realize there is no consistent pattern as to what each question requires from you.
Let's take a look at the passage to make sure we're on the same page about the argument before we take a look at (B) and (E). The author's conclusion is that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. I've highlighted the word 'entire' there deliberately as it's going to become really important later. The reason provided for this conclusion is that the cost of maintaining the highways comes entirely from revenue generated by the highway tolls.
So, the government will have to raise general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways because it will lose its current source of funding if it eliminates the tolls. The author has made an assumption in this argument, and we need to find out what that assumption is to answer this question.
If we look at (E) first, we're told that if the tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase general taxes. The argument talks specifically about highway maintenance and doesn't mention any other reason why taxes might need to go up. The government of Holston could be planning new infrastructure projects, welfare increases, or new spending on education needed, for example. While it might be true there would be no need to increase general taxes specifically to pay to maintain the highways, the argument doesn't assume there would be no need *at all* to raise general taxes. This means we can cross out answer choice (E).
Answer choice (B) tells us the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with collecting the tolls would not be available to pay for part of the total cost of maintaining the highways. Remeber that the conclusion says that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to come from increases in general taxation. If the government saved some money by not collecting the tolls and made this money available to help pay for some portion of the highway maintenance budget, however small, then we would not need an increase in general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways. The argument does assume that this money would not be available to help pay for maintaining the highways, which is why (B) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
For Q2, (E) reads: if the highway tolls are not eliminated; there will be no need to increase the general taxes.
and the author concludes that the cost of maintenance of tolls will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes.
Wouldn't (E) imply that all other reasons for an increase in general taxes are completely ignored? It seems to me that this would be a central assumption for making the authors conclusion work. After all if tolls are not eliminated, the general taxes could still increase due to whatever many reasons. So, the author assumes that there are no other reasons for taxes to increase besides the elimination of the toll.
Could you help understand why this logic is flawed? As through process of elimination I also eliminated B.
My logic was this:
(B) states that the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with toll collection would not be available to pay part of the total cost of maintaining the highways.
Let's say that that total money saved by eliminating costs was 100 and the total cost for maintaining was 150 - that would leave an additional 50 to be paid for by taxes. This means that despite only a part of the money being available the taxes would still increase.
Let's take a look at the passage to make sure we're on the same page about the argument before we take a look at (B) and (E). The author's conclusion is that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to be paid for by an increase in general taxes. I've highlighted the word 'entire' there deliberately as it's going to become really important later. The reason provided for this conclusion is that the cost of maintaining the highways comes entirely from revenue generated by the highway tolls.
So, the government will have to raise general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways because it will lose its current source of funding if it eliminates the tolls. The author has made an assumption in this argument, and we need to find out what that assumption is to answer this question.
If we look at (E) first, we're told that if the tolls are not eliminated, there will be no need to increase general taxes. The argument talks specifically about highway maintenance and doesn't mention any other reason why taxes might need to go up. The government of Holston could be planning new infrastructure projects, welfare increases, or new spending on education, for example. While it might be true there would be no need to increase general taxes specifically to pay to maintain the highways, the argument doesn't assume there would be no need at all to raise general taxes. This means we can cross out answer choice (E).
Answer choice (B) tells us the amount of money saved by eliminating the costs associated with collecting the tolls would not be available to pay for part of the total cost of maintaining the highways. Remember that the conclusion says that if the tolls are removed, the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways will have to come from increases in general taxation. If the government saved some money by not collecting the tolls and made this money available to help pay for some portion of the highway maintenance budget, however small, then we would not need an increase in general taxes to pay for the ENTIRE cost of maintaining the highways. The argument does assume that this money would not be available to help pay for maintaining the highways, which is why (B) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
the last answer is full of personal assumptions. i thought we must insist "their thoughts", not "my thoughts"
You're absolutely right that you should stick to the exact language on the page when you're breaking down an argument or reading an answer choice.
To actually reason your way through an answer choice, though, you do need to bring your "whole brain" into the discussion and think through the connections between passage, the question, and the answer choices.
In the last question, we're looking for an answer choice that must be true in order for the plan to achieve its goal. So, you have to look at each option and ask yourself, "does this thing have to be true?" If you can think of a case in which it doesn't have to be true, then you can eliminate that answer choice. For instance, you can eliminate answer choice (B) because people don't have to PREFER a restaurant to want a free meal there.
That's very different from adding in personal assumptions to the passage itself. The goal is to first have a very precise understanding of the exact information on the page, and then to think critically through the implications of each answer choice.
I hope that helps!
2/3