I'm done and dusted with the GMAT! Signing off with a satisfying score: 730 (Q:49, V:41). The SC, RC & CR video series are the sole reasons behind my above average verbal score. Thank you GMATNinja for helping me in this gruelling journey. You guys are the best GMAT tutors out there.
Finally, I've completed the amazing CR and SC series by GMAT Ninja. RC and Quant series will be finished soon. I can't thank you enough for such a series!! I'm gonna recommend this source to my juniors for sure!! God bless you all :)
You're awesome, thank you so much for taking the time to write this! It puts a smile on our faces, and I'm glad that we could help a bit. Have fun studying, Manjinder!
Some great news to share, I just got accepted to CMU Tepper MBA program last week! I would like to thank you again for all the videos you posted. They really helped a lot when I was struggling with GMAT a few months ago. I recommend anyone who is preparing for their GMAT to finish watching all of the GMAT Ninja videos. These videos will show you the correct and most effective way to approach different types of questions.
This is absolutely amazing -- congratulations, @Darren Deng! I'm honored that you took the time to share this with us. It absolutely made my day. Seriously, please keep in touch, and thank you again for being so wonderfully positive with your comments on our videos. I'm glad that we could help a little bit. Congratulations again! - Charles
Thanks for these videos! They are amazing and they helped me a lot. I must admit though, that at 22:12, I think the stretches made to cross-off B, could be made for E as well. Maybe public-sector jobs could be impacted by the financial service company leaving as well? E.g., bus drivers, street sweepers (around the office), etc. getting laid off. I am aware I am grasping at straws, but the same could be said for B. I guess that in the context of the question ("properly concluded"), E still makes the most sense though. Cheers!
Hi Loek, Thank you for the kind words! I'm pleased you're finding the videos helpful. In this question, we can't use the same argument to cross off answer choice (E) that we used in (B) because the end of (E) states "unless it results in a contraction of public-sector payroll." This means we have to consider the effect of the company relocating outside of Metroburg without any of the public-sector employees being laid off in the way you suggest. If we do that, then the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector is likely to increase as the company relocates. You're totally right that the public sector jobs could be impacted by this company's departure, but the way (E) is written means we can't think about these potential job losses as we consider (E). I hope that helps!
@@harryduthie Hi Harry . Option E will be correct only if we take the assumption that private sector jobs were less or equal to public sector jobs from the start . Lets say Private Sector Jobs = 200 . Public Sector Jobs = 100. Total Jobs = 300. Relocation of JOBS = 300 * 1% = 3. Therefore New Private Sector Jobs= 197. Public Sector Jobs =100. In this case the proportion of jobs in Private Sector is still more than Public Sector. (197/297 > 100/297) . How can we make such an assumption ?
@@GMATTargetplus Hi, I think the public job proportion is compared to its previous value(ie w/o relocation of the company) and not to the private job proportion. And so it should increase from 100/300 to 100/297
Thanks for the videos! In Q2, it is not convincing enough as to why E is chosen over B. In justifying why B is incorrect, we are saying that it "could" lead to an increase in unemployment rate, doesn't mean that it "will". However, in the case of E, similarly, we cannot assume that it "will" lead to creation of jobs (that too specifically, public sector jobs as specified in the answer which makes it even more tricky). So why is E is a better option? when both are equally likely/not likely.
Answer choice (B) tells us that "the company's departure will not lead to any increase in the unemployment rate among city residents." There is no information in the passage about what *might* happen to employment rates in the city after the financial services company relocates. Answer choice (B) gives us some speculation about what *might* happen after the company relocates, but we can't conclude this *will* happen *from the information in the passage* . When looking at (E), we don't assume that the company's departure will lead to the creation of public sector jobs. We're told that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. And (E) tells us to consider the effects of this change while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not change. If we do this, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring What if other private companies open up in the city ? there is no info given in option E , we are assuming it.(proportion = Public sector/Pvt sector) in option E, given numerator =const but in denominator only one company is being considered for answering? Please comment.
In the first question, I felt that B is a better option because if this is true then that means that adding a credit card logo is increasing the sale of that credit card company, thus it is getting noticed and hence should support the psychologists' claim because he essentially means that the logo is getting noticed (which is exactly the reason why A was chosen as an answer)
Hi Kanishk, The psychologists' interpretation of the study wasn't just that the card logo was getting noticed, it was also that the customer is reminded they have additional spending power over and above the cash they have in their pocket when they notice the card logo. (B) tells us that the percentage of bills paid with a given brand of credit card increases when that brand's logo is on the tray, so the customer is definitely noticing the logo. However, knowing that the percentage of bills paid with a credit card has increased doesn't tell us whether an individual customer is reminded of their financial situation by seeing the logo. This means (B) doesn't provide us with any support for the psychologists' interpretation, and (B) is not the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
Haha, fair enough! Just changed it. :) Thank you for the kind words, Austin! I'm honored that you're enjoying the videos enough to drop by our website. Have fun studying, and keep us posted on your progress!
the error most students make on the 1st question, is mistaking the fact with the conclusion. the fact is telling a noticed phenomenon, that many credit-card holder tip more, because they are reminded of how much they have on their bank account. While the conclusion of the argument (not clearly stated !!!) is correlation between the credit card obligations AND how much people are ready to tip. That there is actually a positive correlation. from this question, I learned that we must constantly ask ourselves, what is the role of the argument.
Thank you for the very kind words Mirasa, I'm pleased you've found the videos helpful! I hope the rest of your GMAT studies go well; please keep us posted on how you get on.
Is my understanding correct that the interpretation of psychologists depends on the positive correlation between seeing the logo on the tray (reminding them of more purchasing power) and willingness to pay more as tip. So correct option even though is talking about the opposite scenario however it strengthens this correlation further showing us that this holds true in opposite scenario also. This strengthening the underlying hypothesis?
Hi Aayushman, I think you're very close, but since we weren't given any figures describing the size of the change in the tip amount, I wouldn't go as far as to talk about a correlation. In the passage, the psychologists' interpretation is that seeing a credit card logo reminded the customer that they have a credit card. This tended to lead to a higher tip as the customer was reminded they "their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available". So a customer that is reminded they have a credit card and are in a good financial position will tip more than if they weren't shown the logo. In (A), when the customers who are under financial pressure were presented with a tray with a credit card logo, they were also reminded they have a credit card. However, these people were also reminded of how much they owe so they reduced the amount they tip. This behavior change is consistent with the behavior change described in the passage. When customers who have been reminded they have a credit card feel they have more money available to them than "the cash they have immediately available," they're likely to tip more, and when they feel they are under financial pressure, they're likely to tip less. We aren't given any numbers for these results, so I'd be careful not to talk of any correlation. However, (A) provides a second example of a behavior change in the amount of money the customer is willing to tip compared to what would have happened if they hadn't seen the credit card logo. Since this behavior change is consistent with the behavior mentioned in the passage, (A) strengthens the psychologists' interpretation of the studies. I hope that helps!
q3: no option seemed correct. option E says it compounds. our fact that had to be countered: irradiation is no worse than cooking. this implies that proponents of irradiation were already saying that both processes lower the nutritional value. E is actually supporting what the proponents were saying
Answer choice (E) tells us that the destructive effect on vitamin B1 is compounded when food is irradiated and then cooked. If each process could only lower the nutritional value to some level but not any further, then the proponents' argument would hold. For example, if we've already lowered the nutrition with irradiation, perhaps cooking won't lower it any further. Choice (E) tells us that this is not the case. If we've already lowered the nutritional value with irradiation, cooking will STILL lower the nutritional value even further (by approximately the same amount). Thus, we have compounded the problem, and, from a nutritional perspective, we would have been better off without irradiation. Choice (E) explains how the proponents' claim can be misleading, so it is the best answer. I hope that helps!
Hi, first of all, thanks a ton for putting out this content. Really helpful. Now coming back to the questions, for Q2, I was oscillating between B and E. After some deliberation, I was pretty convinced that E was the correct answer choice, but the line "unless it results in a contraction of the public sector payroll" threw me off and I went back to B. What could I do to make sure I don't get fazed like this in the actual exam?
Hello! Thanks a lot for the videos. Absolutely amazing. I have a quick question if possible, In the second question in option (E), it says: "unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll". I am not sure I understand what this sentence means or what its significance is in this context? Thanks again!
In this question, the passage tells us that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. Answer choice (E) suggests there will be an increase in the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, *"unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll."* This part at the end of (E) tells us to consider the change in the proportion of jobs that are in the public sector *while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not change* . Without this assumption, it's possible that the proportion of jobs in the public sector did not change or may even have gone down, depending on whether the number of public-sector employees changed. If we do make this assumption, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
Loved each second of all your videos but when you explain in Q1 that B is wrong because question is concerned about paying by cash. However, nowhere in Option A of Q1 is it mentioned that people are paying by cash/ card. There is confusion? Or I missed out something?
In this question, we're trying to strengthen the conclusion that seeing a credit card logo reminds many credit card holders that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available. Notice that (B) doesn't do much to strengthen this argument. It tells us that seeing a credit card logo makes people more likely to pay with that credit card. But it doesn't strengthen the idea that a credit card logo reminds people about their spending power, so we can eliminate it. So why is (A) better? Well, (A) suggests that seeing a credit card logo reminds people about their spending power. More specifically, it reminds people with annoying credit card obligations about their LACK of spending power. So while (A) doesn't give an example of people tipping MORE because of a credit card logo, it suggests that seeing a credit card logo can affect tipping behavior. More specifically, it confirms that seeing a credit card logo can affect tipping behavior for the same reason mentioned in the conclusion (i.e. it reminds people about their spending ability, whether for better or worse). For that reason, (A) is an imperfect but better answer. I hope that helps!
I might be wrong but the point in E was the reduction in vitB associated with EACH process is compounded( i.e if irradiation was x alone it will be say 3x now alone( with cooking) ) >> meaning the processes are not mutually exclusive in their effect on reduction >> meaning it is misleading to talk about them as separate processes without making a ref to - what if they happen together/one after another?
Hi, I just got done with watching this entire series. This was incredibly helpful! I wanted to practice more high quality questions, can anyone point me to any resources that could help me with that? I would prefer the ones that have good explanations. Thanks!
Hi Ninja Team, For question-2 I have a doubt. I have selected option D as my correct answer. My line of reasoning: Let's for example the OB(Operating Budget of the city) = $10,000 So half of OB = $5000 Also Assume 100 employee work in city and if 2% of their salary goes as tax Means 2% = $5000 of 100 employee And $50 is 2% of 1 employee salary and that is 1% of the OB Revenue collected from payroll. Now I know we cannot say it with cent percent confidence because their are employee with higher salary and lower salary and it might be possible that many of high salary employee were leaving the city. But if we do not know that employee working in Public sector then also we cannot conclude answer E What if their are 0(Zero) employee working in Public Sector So the proportion will not change at all. My Point: Both Ans D and E are based on assumption but if we look the question stem and the information provided We can and should go with safest choice that is D
You're right that answer choice (E) requires the assumption that at least 1 person works in the public sector for the Metroburg government. However, this seems like a reasonable assumption since the Metroburn government collects taxes and has an operating budget. While we aren't told explicitly that at least 1 person works in the public sector in Metroburg, it's a safe assumption to make. This question asks us which answer choice can most properly be concluded from the information given. For answer choice (D) to be correct, the 1 percent of the working population of Metroburg who work for the financial services company would need to contribute exactly 1 percent of the payroll tax. We cannot reasonably conclude this from the information provided in the passage as we don't know whether the employees of the financial services company earn significantly more or less than the city's average salary. Since we don't know this, we can't conclude that (D) is correct from the information given in the passage, meaning (D) is not the correct answer to this question. I hope that helps!
Thank you for doing this video! Super helpful! I didn't quite get the second prompt, reasoning for B though. I thought B was correct because if ALL the people that moved out of Metroburg took their jobs with them, then none of them would lose their jobs, aka no increase in unemployment. The passage did not say whether some of them decided not to move and not to continue working for the same company (if this was the case then I would agree that it led to new unemployment data). So I think both B and E are probable correct answer choices here. Did I miss something else here? Thanks!
The final sentence of the passage tells us "All the company's employees ...will be employed at the new location." So we can say that the employees of the company will not contribute to any increase in the number of unemployed people. However, this question asks us which of the answer choices can most properly be concluded, *based on the information given* . The passage provides no information about other companies or workers that might be affected by the relocation of the financial services company. There may be companies that provided services to the financial services company or its workers, such as security workers, cleaning staff, local coffee shops, local restaurants, or commercial real estate workers. Any or all of these might lose their job as a result of the relocation. Since we can't tell *from the information given* whether the unemployment rate amongst the city's residents will remain the same after the company's relocation, (B) cannot be the correct answer to this question. I hope that helps!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thank you for your reply!! I have one follow-up question: If B had been worded as "...the company's departure will not lead to any ADDITIONAL increase in unemployment rate...", would it have been a proper conclusion?
@@drewt3735 You're very welcome. However, changing (B) to mention ADDITIONAL increases in the unemployment rate still doesn't resolve the problem I mentioned in my original answer. From the information provided in the passage, we still don't have any information about what might have happened to any other company in Metroburg. The company's departure might mean that several security personnel working for a security firm in the office building that the financial services company occupied in Metroburg are no longer needed and will now be unemployed. However, a new company might take over the premises and the security personnel could retain their jobs. From the information provided in the passage, we just can't tell. Since we don't have any information about what happens to any other company in Metroburg, we cannot conclude that the company's departure would not lead to any additional increase in the unemployment rate *from the information provided in the passage* . I hope that helps!
In all honesty, it just depends on what you're looking for. The video on the current page is part of a free, complete GMAT course that we've published on our TH-cam channel. You can access all of the course playlists here for quant and verbal: www.youtube.com/@GMATNinjaTutoring/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=2 If you're looking for specific homework assignments (and not just videos), you could also try the 13-week study plan published on GMAT Club. It's a very different thing than our video course, and may or may not be the right fit for you. You can find week 1 of the study plan here: gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-ninja-study-plan-week-400295.html. If neither of those resources are the right fit for you, you could also consider a more traditional classroom or online prep course. And if you need a very personalized plan, you could always hire a tutor. Check out our website (www.gmatninja.com/) for more about online tutoring, or you could hire somebody in your local area if online isn't your thing. But hopefully the video course or another free option does the trick. I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!
In Q2, Since 50% of revenue is coming from 100% of employees in the city at a rate or 2% tax. The share of Metroburg employees' contribution to revenue is only 0.5% (on average as we don't know if they are paid less or more). Since it is only 0.5% not 1 %, can we not eliminate options talking 1 percent like (A) and (D) on this logic?
Hi! We need to be careful with making assumptions about how much the employees from this company contribute to the payroll tax or the city's operating budget. We have no idea whether the employees of this company are, on average, paid significantly less, significantly more, or the same as the average worker in the city. This means we *cannot* say the employees' contribution to the city's operating budget is 0.5%. As an example, if the employees at the company were all paid significantly more than the average worker in the city, then the employees' contribution to the operating budget would be more than 0.5%. We can then eliminate (A) and (D) by saying we don't know how much the revenue will decline, for either the city's operating budget mentioned in (A) or the payroll tax mentioned in (D). This is because we don't know what proportion of the revenue is paid by the employees of the financial services company in the first place. I hope that helps!
Really enjoyed this video. Thank you for making this and hoping to see many more. I need some help with fixing my thought process for Q3 - When i read the conclusion that says - "this fact is beside the point, since...", I didn't associate the sentence "Proponents of irradiation point out that..." because i read it as a CLAIM the proponents are making and not a FACT. Can you help me with this please ?
Hi! The passage tells us that the "Proponents of irradiation POINT OUT that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." It's possible for the proponents to point out a fact, which is what they're doing in this case. You could also argue that the proponents are making a factual claim, which is a claim that concerns measurable effects that can be proven to be true or false. In either case, the idea that "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." is the fact that the final sentence of this passage is referring to when it says "this fact is beside the point." I hope that helps!
Hello, regarding Q2, I eliminated choice E because of the part that says "unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll", because the "unless" sounds very definitive, and there could be a chance of not increasing the public-private proportion if Metroburg just increase the amount of private workers. Is there something that im missing?
We can't make decisions in Critical Reasoning based on a single word in the answer choice. It doesn't matter how definitive the "unless" sounds because all that matters is whether we can conclude (E) from the information given in the passage. While one word can change the meaning of the answer choice, we have to make the decision based on the answer choice as a whole. Answer choice (E) tells us: "The company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll." This means we can ONLY consider the effects of "the company's relocation." We can't consider the effects of this relocation on the number of private sector jobs or any other changes in the number of jobs in the private sector as the answer choice limits us to considering the company's relocation. If the company relocates and takes all of its jobs with it, there will be a reduction in the number of private sector jobs in Metroburg. If the number of public sector jobs remains static, then the company's move will have increased the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector. However, if there is a contraction in the number of public-sector jobs as a result of the company's move, then it's possible that the relocation will not increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector. This means that we can use the information in the passage to come to the conclusion that (E) states and that (E) is the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
The answer in 3rd question does not make sense because the argument flows in such a way that irradiated food and cooked food are compared. The answer suggests a comparison between irradiated food and irradiated plus cooked or not cooked food. Are these questions official are you making them up because its nearly impossible to answer them correctly. I have watched all the series in CR btw.
Hi! In this question, we discuss the fact presented in the argument by the proponents of food irradiation. These proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse than cooking when it comes to lowering the nutritional value of food. The conclusion starts by telling us this claim is sometimes beside the point as much irradiated food is eaten raw. This part of the conclusion deals with uncooked food, so the second part of the conclusion and the part of the conclusion we have to deal with in the question is about food that is irradiated *and* cooked. Answer choice (E) tells us that the destructive effect on vitamin B1 is compounded when food is irradiated and then cooked. If each process could only lower the nutritional value to some level but not any further, then the proponents' argument would hold. For example, if we've already lowered the nutrition with irradiation, perhaps cooking won't lower it any further. Choice (E) tells us that this is not the case. If we've already lowered the nutritional value with irradiation, cooking will STILL lower the nutritional value even further (by approximately the same amount). Thus, we have compounded the problem, and, from a nutritional perspective, we would have been better off without irradiation. Choice (E) explains how the proponents' claim can be misleading, so it is the best answer. This question is an official GMAT question from some of the old versions of the Official Guide. All of the questions in this series are official questions from either the GMAT or the LSAT. I hope that helps!
Personally, I didn't consider E in Q3 because it is a) talking about a particular Vitamin and not generally about the nutritional value. But more importantly, I think option C) is also saying the same thing as option E), but it is rather being general about it. As in as Cooking is the last step and before that the product is on a shelf, by the time we end up talking about its consumption, both irradiation and cooking have had their detrimental effect on the nutritional value. Please help out with this confusion. @@harryduthie
Hi @@kartikeyyy123417, The argument tells us "irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain" and goes on to say "proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse IN THIS RESPECT than cooking." The question then asks us to complete the sentence "THIS FACT...is misleading because____" so the correct answer choice to this question could definitely discuss just vitamin B1. It would also be fine if it discussed nutritional value in general, but discussing this particular vitamin shouldn't rule the answer choice out. In this question, we need to find the answer choice that explains why saying irradiation is no worse than cooking in how much vitamin B1 in a food is destroyed is misleading. Answer choice (C) tells us cooking is the last step in food preparation, but doesn't specify that a food would necessarily have been irradiated before this cooking. Alternatively, (C) tells us that "irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods," but doesn't specify that this food would necessarily be cooked before being eaten. So, (C) does not discuss the problem of food being both irradiated AND cooked in the way (E) does. The problem is that this additional information about cooking and irradiation does not explain why the proponents' claim is misleading. For answer choice (E), if we've already lowered the nutritional value with irradiation, cooking will STILL lower the nutritional value even further (by approximately the same amount). Thus, we have compounded the problem, and, from a nutritional perspective, we would have been better off without irradiation. Choice (E) explains how the proponents' claim can be misleading, so it is the best answer. I hope that helps!
Q2: b seemed like the answer. all employees relocate along with the company, so no jobs lost. how can we assume there were restaurants, drivers etc. associated with the companies. won't that be too much assumption?
Answer choice (B) tells us that "the company's departure will not lead to any increase in the unemployment rate among city residents." There is no information in the passage about what might happen to employment rates in the city after the financial services company relocates. Answer choice (B) gives us some speculation about what might happen after the company relocates, but we can't conclude this will happen from the information in the passage. Since we're looking for the answer that can most properly be concluded from the information in the passage, this means (B) is not the answer to this question. On the other hand, the passage tells us that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. And (E) tells us to consider this change while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not decrease. If we do this, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
Confused with example 2. Why is B incorrect? Both B and E are not definite, we can’t say that both would be 100% correct. But, why is E a more proper answer?
Hi! In this question, we're not looking for an answer we can definitely, certainly say is 100% correct. We're looking for the answer that can most properly be concluded from the information in the passage. Answer choice (B) tells us that "the company's departure will not lead to any increase in the unemployment rate among city residents." There is no information in the passage about what might happen to employment rates in the city after the financial services company relocates. Answer choice (B) gives us some speculation about what *might* happen after the company relocates, but we can't conclude this will happen *from the information in the passage* . On the other hand, the passage tells us that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. And (E) tells us to consider this change while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not change. If we do this, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question. I hope that helps!
I'm done and dusted with the GMAT! Signing off with a satisfying score: 730 (Q:49, V:41). The SC, RC & CR video series are the sole reasons behind my above average verbal score. Thank you GMATNinja for helping me in this gruelling journey. You guys are the best GMAT tutors out there.
Finally, I've completed the amazing CR and SC series by GMAT Ninja. RC and Quant series will be finished soon. I can't thank you enough for such a series!! I'm gonna recommend this source to my juniors for sure!! God bless you all :)
You're awesome, thank you so much for taking the time to write this! It puts a smile on our faces, and I'm glad that we could help a bit. Have fun studying, Manjinder!
I'm a non-native speaker. I finished all your verbal videos and got a 710 on my first(and last) attempt! Thanks for the great content!!
Congratulations Sisi!!
I'm so pleased our videos could play a small part in helping you reach your goals. That's an amazing score, well done!
Some great news to share, I just got accepted to CMU Tepper MBA program last week! I would like to thank you again for all the videos you posted. They really helped a lot when I was struggling with GMAT a few months ago.
I recommend anyone who is preparing for their GMAT to finish watching all of the GMAT Ninja videos. These videos will show you the correct and most effective way to approach different types of questions.
This is absolutely amazing -- congratulations, @Darren Deng! I'm honored that you took the time to share this with us. It absolutely made my day.
Seriously, please keep in touch, and thank you again for being so wonderfully positive with your comments on our videos. I'm glad that we could help a little bit.
Congratulations again!
- Charles
Q2 gave me a headache
There are so many assumptions in option E
B seemed like a reasonable guess but turns out I was wrong
Am I the only one who got all the answers wrong!
Not the only one
The 2nd question gave me a headache
The last option was the least likely to be the right answer
Thesere questions were nasty
Makes just two of you
Jk 😢
How are we supposed to think everything in two minutes. I hardly finished reading the question and go through the answers and time is over
its been one year I hope you do have the answer now? If yes, then spill the beans 😭
really awesome video! pinpointed exactly the problems I have ran into when I was practicing.
Thank you - so glad you found this helpful!
Thanks for these videos! They are amazing and they helped me a lot.
I must admit though, that at 22:12, I think the stretches made to cross-off B, could be made for E as well. Maybe public-sector jobs could be impacted by the financial service company leaving as well? E.g., bus drivers, street sweepers (around the office), etc. getting laid off.
I am aware I am grasping at straws, but the same could be said for B.
I guess that in the context of the question ("properly concluded"), E still makes the most sense though.
Cheers!
Hi Loek,
Thank you for the kind words! I'm pleased you're finding the videos helpful.
In this question, we can't use the same argument to cross off answer choice (E) that we used in (B) because the end of (E) states "unless it results in a contraction of public-sector payroll." This means we have to consider the effect of the company relocating outside of Metroburg without any of the public-sector employees being laid off in the way you suggest. If we do that, then the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector is likely to increase as the company relocates.
You're totally right that the public sector jobs could be impacted by this company's departure, but the way (E) is written means we can't think about these potential job losses as we consider (E).
I hope that helps!
@@harryduthie Thanks for the detailed answer Harry! Appreciate it.
@@harryduthie Hi Harry . Option E will be correct only if we take the assumption that private sector jobs were less or equal to public sector jobs from the start . Lets say Private Sector Jobs = 200 . Public Sector Jobs = 100. Total Jobs = 300. Relocation of JOBS = 300 * 1% = 3. Therefore New Private Sector Jobs= 197. Public Sector Jobs =100. In this case the proportion of jobs in Private Sector is still more than Public Sector. (197/297 > 100/297) . How can we make such an assumption ?
@@GMATTargetplus Hi, I think the public job proportion is compared to its previous value(ie w/o relocation of the company) and not to the private job proportion. And so it should increase from 100/300 to 100/297
Thanks for the videos!
In Q2, it is not convincing enough as to why E is chosen over B. In justifying why B is incorrect, we are saying that it "could" lead to an increase in unemployment rate, doesn't mean that it "will". However, in the case of E, similarly, we cannot assume that it "will" lead to creation of jobs (that too specifically, public sector jobs as specified in the answer which makes it even more tricky). So why is E is a better option? when both are equally likely/not likely.
Answer choice (B) tells us that "the company's departure will not lead to any increase in the unemployment rate among city residents." There is no information in the passage about what *might* happen to employment rates in the city after the financial services company relocates. Answer choice (B) gives us some speculation about what *might* happen after the company relocates, but we can't conclude this *will* happen *from the information in the passage* .
When looking at (E), we don't assume that the company's departure will lead to the creation of public sector jobs. We're told that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. And (E) tells us to consider the effects of this change while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not change. If we do this, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring What if other private companies open up in the city ? there is no info given in option E , we are assuming it.(proportion = Public sector/Pvt sector) in option E, given numerator =const but in denominator only one company is being considered for answering? Please comment.
In the first question, I felt that B is a better option because if this is true then that means that adding a credit card logo is increasing the sale of that credit card company, thus it is getting noticed and hence should support the psychologists' claim because he essentially means that the logo is getting noticed (which is exactly the reason why A was chosen as an answer)
Hi Kanishk,
The psychologists' interpretation of the study wasn't just that the card logo was getting noticed, it was also that the customer is reminded they have additional spending power over and above the cash they have in their pocket when they notice the card logo.
(B) tells us that the percentage of bills paid with a given brand of credit card increases when that brand's logo is on the tray, so the customer is definitely noticing the logo. However, knowing that the percentage of bills paid with a credit card has increased doesn't tell us whether an individual customer is reminded of their financial situation by seeing the logo. This means (B) doesn't provide us with any support for the psychologists' interpretation, and (B) is not the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
Awesome video. Great learning opportunity.
Thanks that very interesting and u made it very easy to understand RC .
Hi!
Just noticed your website is still 2009-2022*. Perhaps it could be updated to 2023? Small detail
Big fan!! Keep doing God's work guys
Haha, fair enough! Just changed it. :)
Thank you for the kind words, Austin! I'm honored that you're enjoying the videos enough to drop by our website. Have fun studying, and keep us posted on your progress!
the error most students make on the 1st question, is mistaking the fact with the conclusion.
the fact is telling a noticed phenomenon, that many credit-card holder tip more, because they are reminded of how much they have on their bank account.
While the conclusion of the argument (not clearly stated !!!) is correlation between the credit card obligations AND how much people are ready to tip. That there is actually a positive correlation.
from this question, I learned that we must constantly ask ourselves, what is the role of the argument.
Thank you sir. You have been much helpful :) God bless you.
Thank you for the very kind words Mirasa, I'm pleased you've found the videos helpful! I hope the rest of your GMAT studies go well; please keep us posted on how you get on.
@@harryduthie I will surely keep you posted :)
Is my understanding correct that the interpretation of psychologists depends on the positive correlation between seeing the logo on the tray (reminding them of more purchasing power) and willingness to pay more as tip. So correct option even though is talking about the opposite scenario however it strengthens this correlation further showing us that this holds true in opposite scenario also. This strengthening the underlying hypothesis?
Hi Aayushman,
I think you're very close, but since we weren't given any figures describing the size of the change in the tip amount, I wouldn't go as far as to talk about a correlation.
In the passage, the psychologists' interpretation is that seeing a credit card logo reminded the customer that they have a credit card. This tended to lead to a higher tip as the customer was reminded they "their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available". So a customer that is reminded they have a credit card and are in a good financial position will tip more than if they weren't shown the logo.
In (A), when the customers who are under financial pressure were presented with a tray with a credit card logo, they were also reminded they have a credit card. However, these people were also reminded of how much they owe so they reduced the amount they tip. This behavior change is consistent with the behavior change described in the passage. When customers who have been reminded they have a credit card feel they have more money available to them than "the cash they have immediately available," they're likely to tip more, and when they feel they are under financial pressure, they're likely to tip less.
We aren't given any numbers for these results, so I'd be careful not to talk of any correlation. However, (A) provides a second example of a behavior change in the amount of money the customer is willing to tip compared to what would have happened if they hadn't seen the credit card logo. Since this behavior change is consistent with the behavior mentioned in the passage, (A) strengthens the psychologists' interpretation of the studies.
I hope that helps!
q3: no option seemed correct. option E says it compounds. our fact that had to be countered: irradiation is no worse than cooking. this implies that proponents of irradiation were already saying that both processes lower the nutritional value. E is actually supporting what the proponents were saying
Answer choice (E) tells us that the destructive effect on vitamin B1 is compounded when food is irradiated and then cooked. If each process could only lower the nutritional value to some level but not any further, then the proponents' argument would hold. For example, if we've already lowered the nutrition with irradiation, perhaps cooking won't lower it any further. Choice (E) tells us that this is not the case. If we've already lowered the nutritional value with irradiation, cooking will STILL lower the nutritional value even further (by approximately the same amount). Thus, we have compounded the problem, and, from a nutritional perspective, we would have been better off without irradiation.
Choice (E) explains how the proponents' claim can be misleading, so it is the best answer.
I hope that helps!
Hi, first of all, thanks a ton for putting out this content. Really helpful. Now coming back to the questions, for Q2, I was oscillating between B and E. After some deliberation, I was pretty convinced that E was the correct answer choice, but the line "unless it results in a contraction of the public sector payroll" threw me off and I went back to B. What could I do to make sure I don't get fazed like this in the actual exam?
Hello! Thanks a lot for the videos. Absolutely amazing.
I have a quick question if possible,
In the second question in option (E), it says: "unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll". I am not sure I understand what this sentence means or what its significance is in this context?
Thanks again!
In this question, the passage tells us that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. Answer choice (E) suggests there will be an increase in the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, *"unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll."*
This part at the end of (E) tells us to consider the change in the proportion of jobs that are in the public sector *while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not change* . Without this assumption, it's possible that the proportion of jobs in the public sector did not change or may even have gone down, depending on whether the number of public-sector employees changed.
If we do make this assumption, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
Loved each second of all your videos but when you explain in Q1 that B is wrong because question is concerned about paying by cash. However, nowhere in Option A of Q1 is it mentioned that people are paying by cash/ card.
There is confusion?
Or I missed out something?
In this question, we're trying to strengthen the conclusion that seeing a credit card logo reminds many credit card holders that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.
Notice that (B) doesn't do much to strengthen this argument. It tells us that seeing a credit card logo makes people more likely to pay with that credit card. But it doesn't strengthen the idea that a credit card logo reminds people about their spending power, so we can eliminate it.
So why is (A) better? Well, (A) suggests that seeing a credit card logo reminds people about their spending power. More specifically, it reminds people with annoying credit card obligations about their LACK of spending power. So while (A) doesn't give an example of people tipping MORE because of a credit card logo, it suggests that seeing a credit card logo can affect tipping behavior. More specifically, it confirms that seeing a credit card logo can affect tipping behavior for the same reason mentioned in the conclusion (i.e. it reminds people about their spending ability, whether for better or worse). For that reason, (A) is an imperfect but better answer.
I hope that helps!
I might be wrong but the point in E was the reduction in vitB associated with EACH process is compounded( i.e if irradiation was x alone it will be say 3x now alone( with cooking) ) >> meaning the processes are not mutually exclusive in their effect on reduction >> meaning it is misleading to talk about them as separate processes without making a ref to - what if they happen together/one after another?
Hi, I just got done with watching this entire series. This was incredibly helpful! I wanted to practice more high quality questions, can anyone point me to any resources that could help me with that? I would prefer the ones that have good explanations. Thanks!
Hi Ninja Team,
For question-2 I have a doubt.
I have selected option D as my correct answer.
My line of reasoning:
Let's for example the OB(Operating Budget of the city) = $10,000
So half of OB = $5000
Also Assume 100 employee work in city and if 2% of their salary goes as tax
Means 2% = $5000 of 100 employee
And $50 is 2% of 1 employee salary and that is 1% of the OB Revenue collected from payroll.
Now I know we cannot say it with cent percent confidence because their are employee with higher salary and lower salary and it might be possible that many of high salary employee were leaving the city.
But if we do not know that employee working in Public sector then also we cannot conclude answer E
What if their are 0(Zero) employee working in Public Sector So the proportion will not change at all.
My Point: Both Ans D and E are based on assumption but if we look the question stem and the information provided We can and should go with safest choice that is D
You're right that answer choice (E) requires the assumption that at least 1 person works in the public sector for the Metroburg government. However, this seems like a reasonable assumption since the Metroburn government collects taxes and has an operating budget. While we aren't told explicitly that at least 1 person works in the public sector in Metroburg, it's a safe assumption to make.
This question asks us which answer choice can most properly be concluded from the information given. For answer choice (D) to be correct, the 1 percent of the working population of Metroburg who work for the financial services company would need to contribute exactly 1 percent of the payroll tax. We cannot reasonably conclude this from the information provided in the passage as we don't know whether the employees of the financial services company earn significantly more or less than the city's average salary. Since we don't know this, we can't conclude that (D) is correct from the information given in the passage, meaning (D) is not the correct answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
Thank you for doing this video! Super helpful! I didn't quite get the second prompt, reasoning for B though. I thought B was correct because if ALL the people that moved out of Metroburg took their jobs with them, then none of them would lose their jobs, aka no increase in unemployment. The passage did not say whether some of them decided not to move and not to continue working for the same company (if this was the case then I would agree that it led to new unemployment data). So I think both B and E are probable correct answer choices here. Did I miss something else here? Thanks!
The final sentence of the passage tells us "All the company's employees ...will be employed at the new location." So we can say that the employees of the company will not contribute to any increase in the number of unemployed people. However, this question asks us which of the answer choices can most properly be concluded, *based on the information given* . The passage provides no information about other companies or workers that might be affected by the relocation of the financial services company. There may be companies that provided services to the financial services company or its workers, such as security workers, cleaning staff, local coffee shops, local restaurants, or commercial real estate workers. Any or all of these might lose their job as a result of the relocation.
Since we can't tell *from the information given* whether the unemployment rate amongst the city's residents will remain the same after the company's relocation, (B) cannot be the correct answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thank you for your reply!! I have one follow-up question: If B had been worded as "...the company's departure will not lead to any ADDITIONAL increase in unemployment rate...", would it have been a proper conclusion?
@@drewt3735 You're very welcome. However, changing (B) to mention ADDITIONAL increases in the unemployment rate still doesn't resolve the problem I mentioned in my original answer.
From the information provided in the passage, we still don't have any information about what might have happened to any other company in Metroburg. The company's departure might mean that several security personnel working for a security firm in the office building that the financial services company occupied in Metroburg are no longer needed and will now be unemployed. However, a new company might take over the premises and the security personnel could retain their jobs. From the information provided in the passage, we just can't tell.
Since we don't have any information about what happens to any other company in Metroburg, we cannot conclude that the company's departure would not lead to any additional increase in the unemployment rate *from the information provided in the passage* .
I hope that helps!
Could you please suggest a good learning resource to get a complete preparation for the GMAT exam?
In all honesty, it just depends on what you're looking for. The video on the current page is part of a free, complete GMAT course that we've published on our TH-cam channel. You can access all of the course playlists here for quant and verbal: www.youtube.com/@GMATNinjaTutoring/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=2
If you're looking for specific homework assignments (and not just videos), you could also try the 13-week study plan published on GMAT Club. It's a very different thing than our video course, and may or may not be the right fit for you. You can find week 1 of the study plan here: gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-ninja-study-plan-week-400295.html.
If neither of those resources are the right fit for you, you could also consider a more traditional classroom or online prep course. And if you need a very personalized plan, you could always hire a tutor. Check out our website (www.gmatninja.com/) for more about online tutoring, or you could hire somebody in your local area if online isn't your thing. But hopefully the video course or another free option does the trick.
I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thanks a lot! :)
In Q2, Since 50% of revenue is coming from 100% of employees in the city at a rate or 2% tax. The share of Metroburg employees' contribution to revenue is only 0.5% (on average as we don't know if they are paid less or more). Since it is only 0.5% not 1 %, can we not eliminate options talking 1 percent like (A) and (D) on this logic?
Hi! We need to be careful with making assumptions about how much the employees from this company contribute to the payroll tax or the city's operating budget. We have no idea whether the employees of this company are, on average, paid significantly less, significantly more, or the same as the average worker in the city. This means we *cannot* say the employees' contribution to the city's operating budget is 0.5%. As an example, if the employees at the company were all paid significantly more than the average worker in the city, then the employees' contribution to the operating budget would be more than 0.5%.
We can then eliminate (A) and (D) by saying we don't know how much the revenue will decline, for either the city's operating budget mentioned in (A) or the payroll tax mentioned in (D). This is because we don't know what proportion of the revenue is paid by the employees of the financial services company in the first place.
I hope that helps!
Really enjoyed this video. Thank you for making this and hoping to see many more.
I need some help with fixing my thought process for Q3 -
When i read the conclusion that says - "this fact is beside the point, since...", I didn't associate the sentence "Proponents of irradiation point out that..." because i read it as a CLAIM the proponents are making and not a FACT.
Can you help me with this please ?
Hi!
The passage tells us that the "Proponents of irradiation POINT OUT that irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." It's possible for the proponents to point out a fact, which is what they're doing in this case. You could also argue that the proponents are making a factual claim, which is a claim that concerns measurable effects that can be proven to be true or false. In either case, the idea that "irradiation is no worse in this respect than cooking." is the fact that the final sentence of this passage is referring to when it says "this fact is beside the point."
I hope that helps!
Hello, regarding Q2, I eliminated choice E because of the part that says "unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll", because the "unless" sounds very definitive, and there could be a chance of not increasing the public-private proportion if Metroburg just increase the amount of private workers.
Is there something that im missing?
We can't make decisions in Critical Reasoning based on a single word in the answer choice. It doesn't matter how definitive the "unless" sounds because all that matters is whether we can conclude (E) from the information given in the passage. While one word can change the meaning of the answer choice, we have to make the decision based on the answer choice as a whole. Answer choice (E) tells us:
"The company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll."
This means we can ONLY consider the effects of "the company's relocation." We can't consider the effects of this relocation on the number of private sector jobs or any other changes in the number of jobs in the private sector as the answer choice limits us to considering the company's relocation.
If the company relocates and takes all of its jobs with it, there will be a reduction in the number of private sector jobs in Metroburg. If the number of public sector jobs remains static, then the company's move will have increased the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector. However, if there is a contraction in the number of public-sector jobs as a result of the company's move, then it's possible that the relocation will not increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector.
This means that we can use the information in the passage to come to the conclusion that (E) states and that (E) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
The answer in 3rd question does not make sense because the argument flows in such a way that irradiated food and cooked food are compared. The answer suggests a comparison between irradiated food and irradiated plus cooked or not cooked food. Are these questions official are you making them up because its nearly impossible to answer them correctly. I have watched all the series in CR btw.
Hi!
In this question, we discuss the fact presented in the argument by the proponents of food irradiation. These proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse than cooking when it comes to lowering the nutritional value of food. The conclusion starts by telling us this claim is sometimes beside the point as much irradiated food is eaten raw. This part of the conclusion deals with uncooked food, so the second part of the conclusion and the part of the conclusion we have to deal with in the question is about food that is irradiated *and* cooked.
Answer choice (E) tells us that the destructive effect on vitamin B1 is compounded when food is irradiated and then cooked. If each process could only lower the nutritional value to some level but not any further, then the proponents' argument would hold. For example, if we've already lowered the nutrition with irradiation, perhaps cooking won't lower it any further. Choice (E) tells us that this is not the case. If we've already lowered the nutritional value with irradiation, cooking will STILL lower the nutritional value even further (by approximately the same amount). Thus, we have compounded the problem, and, from a nutritional perspective, we would have been better off without irradiation.
Choice (E) explains how the proponents' claim can be misleading, so it is the best answer.
This question is an official GMAT question from some of the old versions of the Official Guide. All of the questions in this series are official questions from either the GMAT or the LSAT.
I hope that helps!
Personally, I didn't consider E in Q3 because it is
a) talking about a particular Vitamin and not generally about the nutritional value.
But more importantly, I think option C) is also saying the same thing as option E), but it is rather being general about it. As in as Cooking is the last step and before that the product is on a shelf, by the time we end up talking about its consumption, both irradiation and cooking have had their detrimental effect on the nutritional value.
Please help out with this confusion.
@@harryduthie
Hi @@kartikeyyy123417,
The argument tells us "irradiation destroys a significant percentage of whatever vitamin B1 a food may contain" and goes on to say "proponents of irradiation point out that irradiation is no worse IN THIS RESPECT than cooking." The question then asks us to complete the sentence "THIS FACT...is misleading because____" so the correct answer choice to this question could definitely discuss just vitamin B1. It would also be fine if it discussed nutritional value in general, but discussing this particular vitamin shouldn't rule the answer choice out.
In this question, we need to find the answer choice that explains why saying irradiation is no worse than cooking in how much vitamin B1 in a food is destroyed is misleading. Answer choice (C) tells us cooking is the last step in food preparation, but doesn't specify that a food would necessarily have been irradiated before this cooking. Alternatively, (C) tells us that "irradiation serves to ensure a longer shelf life for perishable foods," but doesn't specify that this food would necessarily be cooked before being eaten. So, (C) does not discuss the problem of food being both irradiated AND cooked in the way (E) does. The problem is that this additional information about cooking and irradiation does not explain why the proponents' claim is misleading.
For answer choice (E), if we've already lowered the nutritional value with irradiation, cooking will STILL lower the nutritional value even further (by approximately the same amount). Thus, we have compounded the problem, and, from a nutritional perspective, we would have been better off without irradiation. Choice (E) explains how the proponents' claim can be misleading, so it is the best answer.
I hope that helps!
Q2: b seemed like the answer. all employees relocate along with the company, so no jobs lost. how can we assume there were restaurants, drivers etc. associated with the companies. won't that be too much assumption?
Answer choice (B) tells us that "the company's departure will not lead to any increase in the unemployment rate among city residents." There is no information in the passage about what might happen to employment rates in the city after the financial services company relocates. Answer choice (B) gives us some speculation about what might happen after the company relocates, but we can't conclude this will happen from the information in the passage. Since we're looking for the answer that can most properly be concluded from the information in the passage, this means (B) is not the answer to this question.
On the other hand, the passage tells us that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. And (E) tells us to consider this change while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not decrease. If we do this, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
3/3, yay!
1/3
I didn't understand the third CR question. HELP??
Confused with example 2. Why is B incorrect? Both B and E are not definite, we can’t say that both would be 100% correct. But, why is E a more proper answer?
Hi! In this question, we're not looking for an answer we can definitely, certainly say is 100% correct. We're looking for the answer that can most properly be concluded from the information in the passage.
Answer choice (B) tells us that "the company's departure will not lead to any increase in the unemployment rate among city residents." There is no information in the passage about what might happen to employment rates in the city after the financial services company relocates. Answer choice (B) gives us some speculation about what *might* happen after the company relocates, but we can't conclude this will happen *from the information in the passage* .
On the other hand, the passage tells us that everyone currently employed in the company will be employed at the new location. This means there will be a reduction in the number of private-sector employees in Metroburg as a result of the company's relocation. And (E) tells us to consider this change while assuming the number of public-sector employees in Metroburg will not change. If we do this, we can say the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector would increase. So, we can reach the conclusion that (E) suggests from the information in the passage, making (E) the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
Thanks @@harryduthie
This sure helps!
bhai sikh to bohot kuch liya uske liye dhnvad video quality chutiya h
besharam. Free mai mil rha hai phir bhi gaali doge.