Radio stations with radio

[RonPurewal]

It's the first one, although you have to kill "if any". ("A lot of if any" is nonsense.)

To figure out this kind of thing, just make simpler analogies.

Few, if any, people I know are over 7 feet tall.

Just use common sense to think about what it means for this statement to be false.
If this statement is false, then that's Many people I know are over 7 feet tall. (It's certainly not Few, if any, people I know are 7 feet tall or shorter!)

[SamikB952]

Answer Choice A seems so convoluted. I got it wrong too. :(
But when you find the core of the sentence, its easier to follow: "(Hardly any) RDS stations broadcast to people not previously reached by RDS stations."
Right?

[RonPurewal]

Answer Choice A seems so convoluted. I got it wrong too. :(
But when you find the core of the sentence...

^^ that's a good recipe for how to read ANY long sentence, especially one that's not broken up by much (if any) punctuation.

[gmatkiller_24]

so, basically, choice B can also be out for the same reason Ron you mentioned above.

we want more than just a radio equipped to receive RDS (choice B )

we want a RDS-equipped radios, just the same stuff mentioned in the question.

in addition to that, we can also eliminate B because it does not address the conclusion that whether the number of specific audiences increase.

choice B only says something static, that many people got a radio, which is by no means what we care about.

Please correct me if I am wrong

[RonPurewal]

we want more than just a radio equipped to receive RDS (choice B )

we want a RDS-equipped radios, just the same stuff mentioned in the question.

no; these are the same.

RDS, according to the passage, is a more technologically advanced broadcast. so, by definition, “an RDS-equipped radio” is a radio that can receive the RDS broadcasts (and can actually use the new features).

[RonPurewal]

analogy:
“an HD(-equipped) television” is the same thing as “a television equipped to receive HD broadcasts”.

think about what an HDTV is:
• it is equipped to receive HD broadcasts;
• it can actually display the broadcast in HD resolution.

what’s also relevant is that there will NOT be any tv’s designed to receive the HD signal but not to broadcast it. because that’s just common sense.
likewise, there will NOT be any tv’s that can display a HD broadcast but can’t receive one in the first place. again, common sense.

if either of these items existed, then “an HD-equipped TV” and “a TV equipped to receive HD” would indeed be different.
but those items clearly do not exist.
so, two references to the same machine.

analogously, there will not be any radios that (a) can receive RDS but can’t use the RDS features, or (b) are equipped for the features but can’t receive the RDS broadcasts to start with.
hence “an RDS-equipped radio” and “a radio equipped to receive RDS” are the same.

[RonPurewal]

it's worthwhile to note that the stuff in the 2 posts above is basically all common sense.
i.e., in the real world, i'd bet $1000's that you would realize, in at most 1-2 seconds, that “an HD-equipped TV” and “a TV equipped to receive HD broadcasts” are the same.

…and, more importantly, you would probably not have to think explicitly about this issue. you would just make the necessary realization(s), provided they were somehow pertinent to the conversation.

the explanation above LOOKS rather nuanced and technical, but that’s only because ordinary common sense—an entirely subconscious thought process—is very often difficult (and sometimes even impossible) to explain in explicit words.

[RonPurewal]

in addition to that, we can also eliminate B because it does not address the conclusion that whether the number of specific audiences increase.

choice B only says something static, that many people got a radio, which is by no means what we care about.

Please correct me if I am wrong

it's actually even worse: that choice specifically addresses the statistic known to have remained the same across the time period of interest ("the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994").

the value of this number is irrelevant; the only relevant notion is whether it has changed, a question that is already answered by the given information.

[CrystalSpringston]

Source : GMATPrep
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
a. few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.
c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station’s listening area.
d. In 1996 Verlanders 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.
e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

Though I got the answer by POE, I was not sure how to apply negation technique to A, especially because of "few if any" phrase.

Thanks
Pathik

here's a diagram for this argument:

(# of rds-equipped stations increased 250-->600)
BUT
(apprx same # of rds radios in Vland)
THEREFORE
(apprx same # of people receiving rds signals in Vland)

if you make this diagram, it should be clear that there's a logical leap between the latter two statements: the author is assuming a direct correlation between the # of rds-equipped radios and the # of people who actually receive rds signals with those radios.
in order to make this connection, you need to assume that nobody, or almost nobody**, with an rds-equipped radio is now (in '96, that is) able to receive a signal but wasn't able to receive a signal back in '94. that's pretty much what (a) says.

**the reason 'almost nobody' is ok is because the passage hedges its bets by speaking in approximations: 'about the same', 'did not increase significantly'. this is the source of the 'few if any' at the beginning of choice (a).
had the passage spoken in more absolute terms - 'the same', 'did not increase' (i.e., at all), then you'd have to replace 'few if any' with 'none'.

Hi Ron,
Just curiously, when you see such assumption questions, do you successfully forecast all the logic leaps beofore you go through the 5 options? And then one of them just hit your projection. You quickly pick it and go.
Have you ever failed to do this way even once? I want to know how important the forecast is in such questions.
For me, in most circumstances, I cannot find the logic leap at once. Either I feel it perfect in the reasoning, or my forecast is different from the real one. So mostly What I can do is to review the options and apply the negation. I think If I have more sense to forecast the leap as soon as I finishing reading, I can handle this kind of question more accurately and quickly.
Take this question for example, I thought it was good enough to reason that the # of RDS radio = the # of people receiving signal.....

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
Just curiously, when you see such assumption questions, do you successfully forecast all the logic leaps beofore you go through the 5 options? And then one of them just hit your projection. You quickly pick it and go.

sometimes.
sometimes not.

if not, just use the negation method.

[RonPurewal]

Take this question for example, I thought it was good enough to reason that the # of RDS radio = the # of people receiving signal.....

it's reasonable that you might think this AT FIRST.

HOWEVER,
if the pink thing were true, then this argument would be perfect—it would be a flawless, rigorous mathematical proof.
(X was the same in '94 as it was in '96, and X = Y. thus Y was the same in both years, too.)

clearly there must be something potentially wrong with the argument. (otherwise there would be no 'assumptions'!)
thus you MUST reject that interpretation, even if it's not yet clear specifically where it goes wrong.

...and, if you can't come up with a potential issue, just go to the choices and negate them.

if this is consistently a problem—i.e., if you are rarely able to predict the issue before looking at the choices—then you may want to try using the negation method as your FIRST approach to these problems.
you should experiment both ways, and then go with whichever order yields the best results for you.

[CrystalSpringston]

Take this question for example, I thought it was good enough to reason that the # of RDS radio = the # of people receiving signal.....

it's reasonable that you might think this AT FIRST.

HOWEVER,
if the pink thing were true, then this argument would be perfect—it would be a flawless, rigorous mathematical proof.
(X was the same in '94 as it was in '96, and X = Y. thus Y was the same in both years, too.)

clearly there must be something potentially wrong with the argument. (otherwise there would be no 'assumptions'!)
thus you MUST reject that interpretation, even if it's not yet clear specifically where it goes wrong.

...and, if you can't come up with a potential issue, just go to the choices and negate them.

if this is consistently a problem—i.e., if you are rarely able to predict the issue before looking at the choices—then you may want to try using the negation method as your FIRST approach to these problems.
you should experiment both ways, and then go with whichever order yields the best results for you.

Thanks Ron.
Your reply helps.
I am practicing now to enhance the predict skills for assumption questions.
Before reviewing the 5 options, I will negate the conclusion firstly, and see what will happen.
I am trying to "feel" the way how GMAC set the logic.
It is much easier to predict logic leaps for more common sense questions, like one question talking about the metabolism of overweigh people . That topic is closer to our daily life.
But for unfamiliar topics, maybe applying the nagation is a quicker way to solve the problem.

[RonPurewal]

It is much easier to predict logic leaps for more common sense questions, like one question talking about the metabolism of overweigh people . That topic is closer to our daily life.

this is going to vary greatly from person to person. things that are 'intuitive' to one person may seem quite distant/'academic' to another.

nonetheless, you've captured the main point here, which is that you should try to 'make the words come alive'.

[jabgt]

Answer Choice A seems so convoluted. I got it wrong too.
But when you find the core of the sentence...

^^ that's a good recipe for how to read ANY long sentence, especially one that's not broken up by much (if any) punctuation.

This answer choice reminds me of the lines of "Sir Humphrey" from the British television series "Yes Prime Minister"...I'm exaggerating. It's fair enough to encounter this kind of sentences in GMAT--business people might speak English in this way. A heads-up.

Sorry for sending such no value-added post.

[RonPurewal]

SC is a test of formal written english. absolutely no one would EVER speak english in the manner in which SC sentences are written.

(this is actually why it's fair to test SC in the first place! it's geographically unbiased—i.e., it neither advantages nor disadvantages anyone from any specific country—because formal written english has NO native speakers.)