Experience the Quality With Free GRE Exam Questions That Helps Candidates Pass

GRE Argument tasks emphasize identifying unstated assumptions that link evidence to conclusion. The company’s reasoning is: free delivery → more orders → higher profits. To reach “higher profits,” the net financial effect must be positive. That requires the incremental revenue (from additional orders and any changes in basket size) to exceed incremental delivery costs; otherwise, volume could increase while profits fall. Option D articulates this bridge. Option A is irrelevant—delivery policy, not prep time, is the lever. Option B, while potentially important competitively, is not strictly necessary for the argument to hold; even if competitors match, profits might still rise if the company’s economics are favorable. Option C need not be true; profits could increase even if average order size changes, provided the net margin covers delivery costs. When evaluating assumptions, ask: if the choice were false, would the conclusion be undermined? If D were false (i.e., costs exceed added revenue), profits would not rise, collapsing the claim—hence it is necessary.

Clues indicate the narration “avoids sensationalism” and favors “measured clarity.” The word must signal neutrality and restraint. “Dispassionate” means impartial and unemotional—precisely the tone described. “Incendiary” and “histrionic” suggest provocation and over-dramatization, which contradict avoidance of sensationalism. “Tendentious” implies biased advocacy. GRE Text Completion often hinges on tonal alignment: when the sentence praises balance and clarity, choose a term that reflects calm neutrality. Plugging in “dispassionate” yields a sentence that flows logically and reinforces the author’s evaluative stance.

For a geometric sequence, an=a1rn−1a_n = a_1 r^{n-1}. Given a1=9a_1=9 and a4=98a_4 = \dfrac{9}{8}. Then

a4=a1r3⇒98=9r3⇒r3=18⇒r=12.a_4 = a_1 r^{3} \Rightarrow \frac{9}{8} = 9 r^3 \Rightarrow r^3 = \frac{1}{8} \Rightarrow r = \frac{1}{2}.

We take the real cube root, yielding r=1/2r=1/2. Option A is correct. Check: a2=9⋅(1/2)=4.5a_2 = 9 \cdot (1/2)= 4.5; a3=4.5⋅(1/2)=2.25a_3 = 4.5 \cdot (1/2)= 2.25; a4=2.25⋅(1/2)=1.125=9/8a_4 = 2.25 \cdot (1/2)= 1.125 = 9/8, consistent. Pitfalls include mistakenly using a4=a1r4a_4 = a_1 r^4 (off by one in the exponent) or extracting a square root instead of a cube root. On GRE sequences, attend to indexing carefully: the exponent is n−1n-1 for the nn-th term. Also note that while cube roots can have multiple complex values, GRE contexts assume the principal real root unless otherwise specified.

Let numbers be aa and bb. Then a+b=30a+b=30, ab=216ab=216. Use identity: (a−b)2=(a+b)2−4ab(a-b)^2=(a+b)^2-4ab. Compute: (30)2−4⋅216=900−864=36(30)^2-4\cdot 216=900-864=36. So ∣a−b∣=36=6|a-b|=\sqrt{36}=6. Choice C. Alternative: solve quadratic t2−30t+216=0t^2-30t+216=0. Roots are 12 and 18, difference=6. Either way, the symmetric relation is efficient. A common mistake is to misapply the difference-of-squares identity or incorrectly compute 4×216. Double-check: 4×216=864, yes. Therefore answer is 6.

To strengthen a causal claim (stadium → higher revenues), provide evidence that ties the effect to the intervention while ruling out confounds. Option B does both: it compares local effects (adjacent neighborhoods) to the citywide baseline and states that the analysis controls for overall economic growth. A localized bump (18%) exceeding the general 8% after adjustment strongly suggests the stadium contributed to incremental revenue via spillovers (sales, tourism, property values). Option A undermines causality by showing the same increase elsewhere absent a stadium—consistent with a broader macro trend. Option C (signing star players) is tangential; it might affect attendance but doesn’t connect to tax revenues or control for other variables. Option D is irrelevant to finances. Strong GRE Argument answers highlight difference-in-differences logic: compare treated and untreated areas before/after while controlling for common shocks. Evidence that isolates the treatment effect offers the most persuasive causal support.