Radio stations with radio

[RonPurewal]

I generally found that the correct answer is usually twisted in CR.

not true; the writing on gmac's official tests is among the most precise, unambiguous writing that i've seen.

there will certainly be problems on which you have to keep a rather close eye on certain details, but, if the writing of the answer choices seems "twisted", then that problem is on the reader's end, not on the writer's.

[ksmith142]

Is D completely a regurgitation of the premise? I'm not sure this is true...

D says: In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.


The premise we are referring to is:
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.

But what if a Verdlander does not own a radio finds some way to find access to one (perhaps he goes to his friend's house who has an RDS radio)?

If we negate the assumption in part D, we now know there are Verdlanders who don't own radios but are receiving messages. This would mean there existed Verdlanders who did not own the radios yet found some way to access the radios. This contradicts the conclusion that "the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.
"

I got the answer A on my first go but upon reviewing I started to question this. I still think A is better because it is more obvious, but D doesn't seem totally wrong to me.

[jlucero]

D says: In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

...

If we negate the assumption in part D, we now know there are Verdlanders who don't own radios but are receiving messages. This would mean there existed Verdlanders who did not own the radios yet found some way to access the radios. This contradicts the conclusion that "the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly."

Be careful what you negate here- the main idea of a negation is to say what if the main idea is not true, not to change the group of people you are referring to. The main idea in D is that certain Verdlanders could not receive any programming from the new stations. Negating this would say that these Verdlanders could receive some programming from the new stations. This would not hurt the conclusion that the Verdlanders receiving special program information did not increase significantly.

The original argument says that RDS technology would give certain extra information to people who had RDS radios. D says that the newest radio stations would only work on RDS radios. This by itself doesn't help or hurt the argument. When you say that people could go and borrow their friends' radios, then you are adding another assumption to the argument.

[georgepaul0071987]

Do these two analogies mimic the original argument as a whole ?

1)the number of ATMs in town A has increased from 20 to 50 in the last two years . However , the number of people in Town A hasn't increased by much over the last two years . Hence the number of people going to ATMs in town A hasn't increased over the last two years

Assumption - few if any ATM have come up in areas of town A that were inaccessible to these people two years ago .

2)the number of Walmart Stores in New York has increased from 100 to 200 in the last ten years . However , the number of people in New York has'nt increased over the last ten years . hence , the number of people going to Walmart stores in NY hasn't increased over the last two years .

Assumption - In the last ten years , Walmart has not introduced discount schemes which offer significantly higher discounts compared to discounts in other stores .

[jlucero]

Great analogies. And while your first assumption is spot on, the second one doesn't work quite as well. A better assumption would be:

None of the new Walmart stores is in a location where citizens were previously not able to shop at a Walmart.

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi Joe - Can you please help me kill answer choice B.

I think answer B - "In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS" - is irrelevant correct?

If we negate answer B " In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station DID NOT already had a
radio equipped to receive RDS. " then this strengthen the argument hence cannot be right?
*****************************

A general question - usually when we arrive at 2 answer choices after eliminating 3 and between the remaining 2 answer choices if Im strongly inclined towards 1 and If im not able to find a good reason to eliminate the other choice quickly should i still spend 20 odd seconds to find a reasons as to why other option is wrong. or should I just go ahead and chose the the option towards which i was more inclined with out spending much time on the other choice.

I'm asking this because today I did at least 50 CR questions and was able to zero in on the 2 answer choices but spent too much time trying to eliminate the wrong answer.

Cheers

[jlucero]

Hi Joe - Can you please help me kill answer choice B.

I think answer B - "In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS" - is irrelevant correct?

If we negate answer B " In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station DID NOT already had a
radio equipped to receive RDS. " then this strengthen the argument hence cannot be right?
*****************************

A general question - usually when we arrive at 2 answer choices after eliminating 3 and between the remaining 2 answer choices if Im strongly inclined towards 1 and If im not able to find a good reason to eliminate the other choice quickly should i still spend 20 odd seconds to find a reasons as to why other option is wrong. or should I just go ahead and chose the the option towards which i was more inclined with out spending much time on the other choice.

I'm asking this because today I did at least 50 CR questions and was able to zero in on the 2 answer choices but spent too much time trying to eliminate the wrong answer.

Cheers

1) We could debate back and forth on whether this would strengthen or be irrelevant, but the key thing is that it definitely doesn't weaken the argument. I would argue that the opposite of "most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had an RDS radio" is "few Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had an RDS radio." Whether there's a lot or a little Verdlanders with special radios, we wouldn't know whether MORE people are getting the special programming.

2) That's a question that's less about CR and more about how your timing is overall on the test. If you frequently find yourself running out of time, maybe you need to recognize that your first guess is your final guess and learn to answer more quickly. If you find that you have more time and the extra time helps you zero in on a correct answer, than feel free to spend the extra 20 seconds per problem.

The key thing you need to remember is that no matter how good/bad you do on a computer-adaptive test is that you will get questions wrong. But if you're consistently eliminating 3 answer choices, you're doing better than most. Keep reviewing these questions you aren't 100% confident in, learn from your mistakes, but understand you won't be getting every question right on test day.

[roshin.nair]

Great post Ron! Thanks for your continued support.

[jlucero]

Glad it helped.

[itsmeaakash3]

D is not an assumption - it is a fact. We are told that you cannot get this type of signal without the right equipment. An assumption must be something that is unstated.

But if the same set of people who didnt hve radio now moved to the regions whr radio was available would actually increase the number of people . NO ?
A yes or no to this point can destroy the conclusion. Can you tell me whr am I mistaken ?

[jnelson0612]

D is not an assumption - it is a fact. We are told that you cannot get this type of signal without the right equipment. An assumption must be something that is unstated.

But if the same set of people who didnt hve radio now moved to the regions whr radio was available would actually increase the number of people . NO ?
A yes or no to this point can destroy the conclusion. Can you tell me whr am I mistaken ?

Here's the problem with that: how will these people receive the radio transmissions if they don't own radios? The number of people hearing the transmissions can only increase if more people have access to the radios.

[abhijit.bharadwaj]

Hello Manhattan Team,

With regard to this Question, if I NEGATE the Option D, this is what I get:

In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS COULD RECEIVE any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

Does this Not mean that- in 1996, Even those who did not have RDS radios could also now receive the Programming from the New radio stations that came up after 1994.

Would this increased number of new audience not destroy the conlcusion ?

[tim]

No. D is talking about receiving *some* programming, not the special programming that is only available on radios with the special receivers.

[Suapplle]

D says: In 1996 Verdlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.

...

If we negate the assumption in part D, we now know there are Verdlanders who don't own radios but are receiving messages. This would mean there existed Verdlanders who did not own the radios yet found some way to access the radios. This contradicts the conclusion that "the number of Verdlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly."

Be careful what you negate here- the main idea of a negation is to say what if the main idea is not true, not to change the group of people you are referring to. The main idea in D is that certain Verdlanders could not receive any programming from the new stations. Negating this would say that these Verdlanders could receive some programming from the new stations. This would not hurt the conclusion that the Verdlanders receiving special program information did not increase significantly.

The original argument says that RDS technology would give certain extra information to people who had RDS radios. D says that the newest radio stations would only work on RDS radios. This by itself doesn't help or hurt the argument. When you say that people could go and borrow their friends' radios, then you are adding another assumption to the argument.

Hi,Joe,I am still confusing about choice D,
if people who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could receive programming from the RDS radio station,it means there is no need to own the radios equipped to receive RDS to receive the special programming,so more people can receive the special programming,as a result,the number of people receiving the special program will increase significantly.is my understanding right?please clarify,thanks!

[RonPurewal]

When you look at choice D, remember what RDS actually is -- according to the information in the passage -- and what it isn't.

The passage says:
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive

Read this very, very literally. If you need to read it multiple times, then read it multiple times.
These words DO NOT say that RDS consists of radio programs that only people with those radios can hear.
The words say that RDS is special "program information" -- i.e., extra information, on top of presumably normal radio programming.
As an example, my wife and I both have radios in our cars, and we can both listen to local radio stations while driving. But mine is strictly a radio, while hers has this digital display that shows the title and artist of each song. That's what this passage is talking about. ("Caller ID" on telephone calls is similar. If you don't have caller ID, you will still receive all the same phone calls, but you just won't see the number that's calling you.)

Again, it's just a matter of careful literal reading. I.e., "program information" is not the same as "programs" (just as "caller ID" is not the same as a call, and "your personal information is missing" is not the same as "you aren't here").
Slow down when you read the passages, and that problem should mostly cake care of itself.

So, basically, everyone can hear the actual radio programming. The only difference with RDS is that you can see extra data on top of the radio programming.
This makes choice D entirely irrelevant, because choice D says that people won't receive any programming at all from the RDS stations. That's at best a misreading of the passage, and at worst a complete misunderstanding. It's definitely not a required assumption.