GMAT Ninja CR Ep 7: Irrelevant & Out of Scope

[@shreyasubramaniam4942]

Branson straight up gaslighting everyone who chose A correctly in Q1 in the first go 🤣😅

[@srikanth6170]

He makes learning fun XD

[@shirleyeriko6012]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@crescentepucci94]

My god you got me there

[@Rii2605]

ikr?

[@eda.98]

Ngl, you had me with the first question. I was like "oh it's A" but when you crossed it out I really questioned myself LOL

[@anandpokharna8599]

true..I also picked A as the answer in the beginning...but when sir said it's not correct...I was like okay then C is correct for xyz reason...then when sir said A is correct in the end... I felt as if I made a fool of myself?..😂😂

[@lennonation]

Damn I saw this before the reveal lol I came here to see how I got it so wrong lol

[@user-li7vp1gc1f]

I was questioning my existence after he didn't even pay attention to A, like "oh, I must be dumb"

[@vishaljha4078]

Last question really blew my mind, awesome work!

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thanks Vishal!

[@suhailansari4408]

You literally pranked us in the 1Q the same way, people pranked using alarm boxes in question stem😂

[@Machaivelli]

Hi team !
Just wanted to thank you guys for the brilliant work you're doing !
I remember solving my first CR question after reading some notes I found online(which I couldn't understand at all) and panicking cos I got all questions wrong
From there I have improved to getting 2 out of 3 questions right most times (I struggle with your last question mostly ) .you guys have explained all of the content brilliantly
Thank you for the high quality content you're uploading each week ! It's really helpful

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you so much for the kind words, @Avidly! I'm honored that we've been able to help a bit. Have fun studying, and keep up the awesome work -- it sounds like you're making some good progress. Keep in touch!

[@saksham337]

So tempted to share this video's link with a prominent GMAT coaching institute's teachers, whose classes I took. They kept insisting on eliminating based on "out of scope" and other gimmicks that the GMAT ninja team has done a wonderful job here on debunking. I used those teachers' classes and techniques and didn't score well on my first attempt. It never sat right with me how we eliminate based on out of scope but I trusted their expertise and went ahead with it. Looking forward to my 2nd attempt now, having gone through most of GMAT ninja's videos. Feeling a lot more confident. Thank you, GMAT Ninja team!

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you so much for the kind words! To be fair, some answer choices really are "out of scope", and that can be a good reason to eliminate an answer choice. It's just that we've seen tons of test-takers over the years who use that term far too casually -- an answer might LOOK like it's "out of scope", but it really isn't.
So I wouldn't be too hard on that coaching institute. We have our own way of explaining things, and I'm glad that it resonated with you! But that doesn't mean that the coaching institute is wrong -- they just phrase things differently (perhaps VERY differently!) than we do. :)
Best of luck with your next attempt, and let us know how things go for you!

[@saksham337]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Hey, thank you! I understand what you mean by saying that their approach can be good. But it's not good to stick to one gimmick. Interestingly, quite a few of the questions covered in this series were taught in the classes. And they still stuck to their gimmicks by conveniently calling the wrong answer choice as out of scope or word matching etc. So they don't keep an open mind about this at all. So TLDR they are wrong. ;)

[@ItachiUchiha-ge6em]

Concerning Question 1:
My explanation for A being correct: The intention of removing the alarm boxes is to reduce the number of prank calls and simultaneously keep the number of calls that are actually made to report a fire high. Looking at A, I would say that this exactly matches the purpose. By tracking private phone calls (which is the only described alternative to pressing an alarm box in this scenario), the number of no-prank calls will significantly fall since people don't want to be tracked for prank calls with their private phone (even though their call is anonymous). People who really want to report a fire will welcome the fact that their phone is tracked, so the fire departments can localize the place of the fire more quickly.

[@srilanka739]

smart fellow.

[@hadeelhajar428]

I thought the same

[@wisamey]

My exact thinking.

[@yuvrajsinghrajawat6433]

The last question was next level brain teaser

[@rohanchakraborty9997]

Hi Branson, had a doubt regarding the 2nd question: you said that the correct option is E) Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases. But how does it weaken the argument if the lobsters never get the gill disease and die much before that? Are we treating the gill disease as something that can impact a lobster even after its death so that in turn this will make humans ill?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Good question! Notice the argument doesn't claim that the lobsters "don't get the gill disease and die much before that". Rather, the lobsters don't live long enough to be "harmed by the diseases." We also know that lobsters are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water.
So even if the infected lobsters themselves aren't harmed by the disease, humans who eat such lobsters could become ill. So if the lobsters are less likely to be exposed to sewage, they'd be less likely to get infected, and humans who eat lobster would be less likely to become ill. For that reason, (E) weakens the argument.
I hope that helps!

[@ptbauro]

Mind-blown.

[@abhishekkumar541]

Last question made me doubt my CR readiness :D

[@saajidify]

I got so worried when you crossed out A in Q1, as I was happy that I was getting better at my approach.

[@jdhdjdnc]

Hi team, I got every question in the video wrong. Do you have any ideas on how I can improve my accuracy? Thank you so much in advance.

[@adithya4320]

Sir, in the last argument, aren't we supposed to weaken the educational theorist's conclusion, which is "The editorials' rationale cannot justify the restriction they advocate"? aren't we supposed to prove that the editorials' rationale can justify the restriction?

[@eddiecy571]

in my opinion , it is not just about implication , it is more like you should stay alert to the extra information , like " substantial proportion " is correlated to "average hw time 30 mins". so you should stay focus and be precise on detail . they wont just put that in the front of the answer for no reason. keep it up !!

[@mihir5211]

hey Branson!
I have a doubt in the second question.
The reasoning you provided for the option E being correct was that the humans could get sick when they eat the sick lobsters.
I will provide my thought process through which my doubt will be clear to you:
Sewage makes lobster sick by giving them gill diseases, under a recent proposal, sewage would not be thrown into the harbor where these lobsters are caught. but this proposal is pointless. We have to weaken this conclusion.
So I never thought that the point was to protect the lobsters, so i didn't eliminate option E because I thought that humans are irrelevant here. I eliminated the option because the passage says that "hardly any" fish survive long enough to contract the disease, so if the fish are not sick with the gill disease, eating them will not make humans sick. (I know that that the argument says hardly any and that means some fish might live long enough to contract the disease, but the option also suggests that humans "often" get sick suggesting that not always do they get sick).
I chose option D even though I knew that it didn't weaken the argument, I thought what if the author thinks that the lobsters are healthy, even though when they are not healthy, because he just looked at them. I know this is very farfetched logic and the passage doesn't mention how the author has determined that the lobsters dont live long enough to contract the disease, but this choice seemed the correct comparatively.
Please help me understand what did I do wrong here! Thanks

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

I think the main problem you've had with this question is a slight misunderstanding of what the passage says.
Notice the argument doesn't claim that the lobsters don't "survive long enough to contract the disease". Rather, the lobsters don't live long enough to be "harmed by the disease." We also know that lobsters are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water.
So even if the infected lobsters themselves aren't harmed by the disease, humans who eat such lobsters could become ill. So if the lobsters are less likely to be exposed to sewage, they'd be less likely to get infected, and humans who eat lobster would be less likely to become ill. For that reason, (E) weakens the argument.
The rest of your problems with this question probably stem from that issue, but please let me know if you have any other questions about this one. I hope that helps!

[@mihir5211]

​@@GMATNinjaTutoring Yes! You were right, I completely missed the 'harmed' part there. This solves my issues, thank you so much!

[@austinjon31]

Really awesome questions! Thank you!

[@kasimuthu8673]

Hi, for the last question - We have to call into question the "Educational Theorist's Conclusion" correct ? Isn't the ET's conclusion that there should be restriction on homework ? So shouldn't we doubt/validate why there should be restrictions on homework ? But here we are questioning the author's conclusion and not the educational theorist's conculsion. Can you please help me understand that part of the question ?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

In this passage, the author is the eduational theorist. It is the editorial (that the educational theorist is criticizing) that advocates restrictions on homework.
The clue that tells us the author is the educational theorist is that the passage starts with "Educational theorist:..." This tells us that the rest of the passage should be read in the educational theorist's voice.
I hope that helps!

[@nipunbagaria]

In Lobsters Question
Option B
What if sewage water is decreasing lobsters life as they live longer in open ocean water than in harbor and thus it weakens the argument.

[@BrendannKellyy]

I agree

[@gauravbadve9692]

Awesome video 👏

[@Vishal_Gupta27]

Do all these questions falls in easy category or hard category?

[@lakshmipl2511]

I was debating my reasoning skills when you said option A was wrong.😭

[@varunagarwal6062]

Can we find the written explanations for the questions discussed in the video anywhere?

[@varunagarwal6062]

I am struggling to understand why is C not the answer for the last question.

[@lllukaaas1205]

Hi Branson, I'm having a hard time understanding why C is not the right answer to the last question. The paragraph tell us that free time plays an important part in child development and if homework now blends with free time, doesn't that lead to a reduction in child development because there is no clear line between homework and actual free time?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

In this question, we need to find the answer choice that most calls into question the educational theorist's conclusion. This conclusion tells us that the editorial's rationale cannot justify the 30-minute homework time limit it advocates. The reason given for this conclusion is that the amount of homework given to a child averages less than 30 minutes per night, so the children have plenty of free-time available.
This means that it doesn't really matter what the homework consists of. Whether or not a child's homework assignments are related to their free-time activities, they will still have plenty of time for their "real" free-time activities once they've finished their 30 minutes of homework. This means that (C) does not call into question the conclusion, so we can cross (C) out.
In (D), we're told that a substantial proportion of children under 12 have less than 10 minutes of homework assigned per night. This means that at least some of the remaining children will have more, and perhaps a lot more, than 30 minutes of homework per night. These children likely won't have time to engage in free-time activities, so the restriction is needed to help these children. This means (D) does call the conclusion into question, so (D) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!

[@vasuagarwal8011]

Hi, i have a small doubt, hope someone can clarify: In q2, option e - "humans become ill as a result of eating lobsters will gill diseases" - doesn't the argument claims that the lobsters don't get infected due to short life span => the lobsters consumed by humans not infected => humans are safe?
Thus, the argument isn't weakened right?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Good question! Notice the argument doesn't claim that the lobsters "don't get infected" due to their short life span. Rather, the lobsters don't live long enough to be "harmed by the diseases." We also know that lobsters are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water.
So even if the infected lobsters themselves aren't harmed by the disease, humans who eat such lobsters could become ill. So if the lobsters are less likely to be exposed to sewage, they'd be less likely to get infected, and humans who eat lobster would be less likely to become ill. For that reason, E weakens the argument.
I hope that helps!

[@tarkberdankoroglu3695]

Thanks, I have lost my self confidence after 1st question...

[@SUDIRISING]

Q2: felt B was the answer. the lobsters living longer in open ocean because there is no sewage water there. and lobsters dont live long enough in harbors because of sewage. can't we reason this way?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Let's take a quick look at the passage before we dig into the answer choices. The conclusion of this passage is that "the proposal [to reroute the sewage offshore] is pointless". The reason given is "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those [gill] diseases." So, we could let the sewage contaminate the water the lobsters live in without much, if any, harm coming to the lobsters, so it doesn't matter whether we let the sewage contaminate the water in the harbor or miles offshore. This is why the author claims the proposal is pointless.
Answer choice (B) tells us that lobsters live longer in the open ocean than they do in industrial harbors. This doesn't contradict, negate, or weaken the statement made in the passage that "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed" by the gill diseases. By rerouting the sewage, all we've done is change which lobsters are getting infected with the gill diseases. There are still hardly any lobsters being harmed by these diseases, it's just the ones being infected live in a different place. This doesn't weaken the claim that "the proposal is pointless," so this isn't the answer to this question.
(E) tells us that "humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters will gill diseases", and the passage tells us the lobsters that humans eat are caught in the harbor. By rerouting the sewage offshore, we could prevent the lobsters that humans eat from becoming infected with gill diseases. While this won't make much difference to the lobsters in the harbor or miles offshore since we know that "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed" by the gill diseases, it will make a difference to the humans who eat the lobsters caught in the harbor. This means the proposal is not pointless and is why (E) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!

[@adityagawhale]

Every option seemed wrong in Q2 as I thought the conclusion is - 'the proposal is pointless' and nothing opposed the conclusion directly

[@IshitaM16]

the last one has me wondering i gotta give so much more time to CR 🙃

[@shrutiv8409]

Damnnn I was gaslighted into thinking my answer was wrong

[@jagjotsingh7378]

1/3

[@laasyakanuru8006]

LMAO i got SO stressed when u flew past A as if it was such an obvious wrong answer bc I was so sure of myself 😭

[@basharabuein409]

Hi! Thanks a lot for the video! I'm a bit puzzled about two things, if possible to ask you guys,
In Q1, how does (A) support the idea that people's ability to report a fire won't be hampered? What if the phone's battery was dead, or there is no cellular service, etc.
In Q3, I am not sure why (B) is a wrong answer choice? Doing homework has no proven value -> let's put limit the amount of homework so that kids don't waste their time on something of no value, but rather on social activities that have always been proven to be valuable.
Thanks!! :)

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

For Q1, remember that the proposal aims to "reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire." Removing the boxes means the fire department has removed the means by which "the vast majority" prank calls are made. Further, if the fire department traces all alarm calls made from private telephones, they'll be able to tell who made any prank calls from a private telephone, providing a deterrant against prank calls made from private telephones. This means (A) has gone a long way toward suggesting the proposal will have the announced effect of reducing the number of prank calls.
A person might have had a dead phone battery or no cellular service before the boxes were removed. They might have struggled to report a fire if they were using their private telephone both before and after the boxes were removed for exactly the same reasons. This means the removal of the boxes has not hampered a person's ability to report a fire.
For Q3, we need to be careful about the wording of the answer choice. (B) tells us that homework has "no proven academic value," not that it has no value at all. We're told that "many educators" believe homework "fosters self-discipline and time management." This means we cannot say that homework has no value and, therefore, we should put a limit on it.
However, in this question, we're not just trying to justify the restriction. We're trying to call into question the educational theorist's conclusion that "the editorial's rationale cannot justify the restriction they advocate." The rationale is all about the amount of time a child has to spend on thir homework each evening, and the theorist's argument is based on the short amount of time the average child spends on their homework. Homework may have "no proven academic value," but that doesn't tell us anything about the amount of homework a teacher has set a child. The average child will still have less than 30-minutes of homework per evening, so (B) does not call the educational theorist's conclusion into question.
I hope that helps!

[@tarkberdankoroglu3695]

In q3, main point is not the goal of hws. It is the amount that is being criticized. Also it says most serious one, so in choice D, there are a minority group who has way more than 50 minutes HW assignments. Becasue majority has lower than 10 mins, total group avg is 30. Thus remaining ones avarage is > than 50 mins. Thus conclusion of HWs take only 30 mins and no restriction needed is false.

[@c6566]

too tough for me :(

[@lennonation]

For me the heart of the passage was clearly the goal of reducing the number of prank calls and when looking at the three options with relation to that made it clear why A is relevant. The passage tries to confuse us by saying extra stuff like alarm boxes etc but the heart of passage identification is the key skill I think. And I sometimes get it easily and sometimes I miss out on the heart, the verbs and words that define the actual heart of passage. Any tips to sharpen that skill?

[@lennonation]

In second one the heart of passage is simply that the proposal is pointless. Basis of which is that lobsters don’t live long enough to be affected by the implications of sewage. However, humans who consume the lobsters can be negatively affected so the proposal is not pointless, it can save humans from contracting diseases. At the end of the day the proposal is not pointless with E

[@lennonation]

Got third one wrong because I mistakenly took the stem to mean that I need to strengthen the editorials statement whereas when I thought about supporting the editorials rationale, it was easy to understand.
Identifying what to defend and attack in a passage is crucial to CR and need to work on that.
Some incorrect options are always addressing an issue of passage which isn’t the heart of the passage and this seem correct but are tricky. As long as the heart is identified accuracy will go up?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Hi Aayushman! It may be helpful to check out the video found at this link: th-cam.com/video/nJZVMFSqvvE/w-d-xo.html.

[@kamilnguyen1487]

i thought i answered q1 incorrectly 🤣

[@kikmessenger9214]

What are you teaching?

[@a2d2charlie13]

Thermodynamics

[@Vishal_Gupta27]

The origin of life

[@sanchitliftss]

Easiest ways to die

[@Purvit]

Your question is irrelevant and out of scope.

[@9967651962]

Well played sir, well played

[@Jigsaw2002]

I wonder how the last question took a turn towards the quant section 🥲

[@sims_ran]

11:17 Bransen giving us trust issues 🥲A cruel trick indeed