GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 28Live Online Class with Top GRE Expert Mike Butville
08:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GRE course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP GRE OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon/Wed Sept. 28, 2026 - Dec. 9, 2026, 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Despite many innovative features, the speed of the new Suzuki, like th
[#permalink]
20 Mar 2026, 02:02
20 Mar 2026, 02:02
Expert Reply
2
Bookmarks
Question 1
00:00
Question Stats:
38% (01:51) correct
63% (02:12) wrong based on 16 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Despite many innovative features, the speed of the new Suzuki, like that of all bikes, is still dictated by a delicate ratio involving weight, power, air resistance, and height. Whatever speed increase has been achieved has been made possible by the fine-tuning of these variables to such an extent that one is forced to wonder whether the optimum ratio has finally been reached and any further increase would require a brand new frame and engine.
Which of the following, if unquestionable, would most validate the conclusion drawn above?
(A) A reduction of all the variable factors increases speed.
(B) The ratio governing speed consists of four factors only.
(C) The speed could be increased by increasing the weight while decreasing wind resistance.
(D) The speed could be increased by retaining the current ratio but strengthening the engine and frame.
(E) Many new innovations would make an increase in speed possible.
Which of the following, if unquestionable, would most validate the conclusion drawn above?
(A) A reduction of all the variable factors increases speed.
(B) The ratio governing speed consists of four factors only.
(C) The speed could be increased by increasing the weight while decreasing wind resistance.
(D) The speed could be increased by retaining the current ratio but strengthening the engine and frame.
(E) Many new innovations would make an increase in speed possible.
- Part of the project: GRE Hard and Tricky Verbal Practice: NEW Questions Daily
- Also replying to the unanswered questions
Re: Despite many innovative features, the speed of the new Suzuki, like th
[#permalink]
27 Mar 2026, 04:04
27 Mar 2026, 04:04
Expert Reply
We need an option that proves tweaking the existing variables is dead and gone as a strategy.
- (A) A reduction of all the variable factors increases speed.
- Analysis: This is almost certainly mathematically false (reducing power usually decreases speed). More importantly, it directly attacks the conclusion. If you can still get faster by just "reducing variables," then you don't need a brand new frame and engine yet.
- Action: Eliminate. (Weakener)
- (B) The ratio governing speed consists of four factors only.
- Analysis: This is the correct answer. The conclusion states that since we've optimized the ratio of those variables, we need new hardware. But what if there was a fifth variable we missed? What if we could increase speed by tweaking temperature or fuel efficiency? If there were other "software" tweaks available, the author's extreme conclusion ("requires a brand new frame and engine") would be invalid. By confirming that only those four factors matter, and that those four are optimized, it forces the conclusion that only hardware changes are left.
- Action: Winner.
- (C) The speed could be increased by increasing the weight while decreasing wind resistance.
- Analysis: This is just another "fine-tuning" strategy. This proves you can increase speed without a new frame and engine, which invalidates the author's conclusion.
- Action: Eliminate. (Weakener)
- (D) The speed could be increased by retaining the current ratio but strengthening the engine and frame.
- Analysis: This describes the conclusion ("new hardware"), but it doesn't validate it. The question is "does the fine-tuning strategy work or not?" This choice doesn't help us decide if the fine-tuning strategy is truly dead. It just states that the hardware strategy would work.
- Action: Eliminate. (Irrelevant/Out of Scope)
- (E) Many new innovations would make an increase in speed possible.
- Analysis: This is too vague. Are these innovations new types of fine-tuning, or do they require a new frame? Because it's "unquestionable," this vague statement doesn't help lock us into the specific requirement of new hardware.
- Action: Eliminate. (Too Vague)
3. Final Logic Check
The argument is: "We've maxed out the software (the ratio). The only way to get faster is a hardware upgrade (new frame/engine)."
This argument assumes there is no other software left to tweak. Choice (B) confirms that assumption as a fact: "There is only this one ratio of four factors, and nothing else." This makes the author's conclusion necessary and valid.
- (A) A reduction of all the variable factors increases speed.
- Analysis: This is almost certainly mathematically false (reducing power usually decreases speed). More importantly, it directly attacks the conclusion. If you can still get faster by just "reducing variables," then you don't need a brand new frame and engine yet.
- Action: Eliminate. (Weakener)
- (B) The ratio governing speed consists of four factors only.
- Analysis: This is the correct answer. The conclusion states that since we've optimized the ratio of those variables, we need new hardware. But what if there was a fifth variable we missed? What if we could increase speed by tweaking temperature or fuel efficiency? If there were other "software" tweaks available, the author's extreme conclusion ("requires a brand new frame and engine") would be invalid. By confirming that only those four factors matter, and that those four are optimized, it forces the conclusion that only hardware changes are left.
- Action: Winner.
- (C) The speed could be increased by increasing the weight while decreasing wind resistance.
- Analysis: This is just another "fine-tuning" strategy. This proves you can increase speed without a new frame and engine, which invalidates the author's conclusion.
- Action: Eliminate. (Weakener)
- (D) The speed could be increased by retaining the current ratio but strengthening the engine and frame.
- Analysis: This describes the conclusion ("new hardware"), but it doesn't validate it. The question is "does the fine-tuning strategy work or not?" This choice doesn't help us decide if the fine-tuning strategy is truly dead. It just states that the hardware strategy would work.
- Action: Eliminate. (Irrelevant/Out of Scope)
- (E) Many new innovations would make an increase in speed possible.
- Analysis: This is too vague. Are these innovations new types of fine-tuning, or do they require a new frame? Because it's "unquestionable," this vague statement doesn't help lock us into the specific requirement of new hardware.
- Action: Eliminate. (Too Vague)
3. Final Logic Check
The argument is: "We've maxed out the software (the ratio). The only way to get faster is a hardware upgrade (new frame/engine)."
This argument assumes there is no other software left to tweak. Choice (B) confirms that assumption as a fact: "There is only this one ratio of four factors, and nothing else." This makes the author's conclusion necessary and valid.
gmatclubot
Re: Despite many innovative features, the speed of the new Suzuki, like th [#permalink]
27 Mar 2026, 04:04
Moderators:
