Critical Reasoning

Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area-whatever those may be-is an expert.
The columnist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(B) Some experts convince everyone of their qualification in almost every area.
(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified in an area requires that one actually be qualified in that area.
(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(E) Some people manage to convince almost everyone of their qualifications in one or more areas.

IMO (A)

IMO A.

imo D

IMO D. What is the OA ?

IMO A...what is OA for this question?

Should be A, option D is too strong using 'Every'.

gmatnmein2010 wrote:Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area-whatever those may be-is an expert.
The columnist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(B) Some experts convince everyone of their qualification in almost every area.
(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified in an area requires that one actually be qualified in that area.
(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(E) Some people manage to convince almost everyone of their qualifications in one or more areas.

My pick is D. The expert trait is to convince some people and anybody who does that is an expert. So every expert has convince some people holds perfect here.
OA pls.

Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area-whatever those may be-is an expert. The columnist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(B) Some experts convince everyone of their qualification in almost every area.
(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified in an area requires that one actually be qualified in that area.
(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(E) Some people manage to convince almost everyone of their qualifications in one or more areas.

The fight is clearly between A and D.

IMHO, D is a shell game answer. Isn't D merely restating the columnist's 2nd statement?

Conclusion = Almost anyone can be an expert. I will reword it as "Most of us can be experts"

Supporting evidence = Any person who can convince others is an expert. I will reword this as "Only those who can convince others are experts". Evidence is noncommittal. It may be true that none of us can convince others. If that is true then the conclusion that "most of us can be experts" falls flat.

Hence, for the reworded conclusion (underlined above) to be true, an assumption is needed, which says...don't worry....Most of us can indeed convince others,.... exactly what A does.....that "Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area"

I am convinced that A is the right answer.

Source, OA and OE requested!!!

IMO A.

Between A and D

D says

Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area
The argument doesn't mention that every expert has convinced... This may be/may not be a necessary condition
There can be two or three reasons to be an experts.

gmatnmein2010 wrote:Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area-whatever those may be-is an expert.
The columnist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(B) Some experts convince everyone of their qualification in almost every area.
(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified in an area requires that one actually be qualified in that area.
(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area.
(E) Some people manage to convince almost everyone of their qualifications in one or more areas.

As always, let's start by examining the question stem:

The columnist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

So, we're looking for an answer that, if we plug it into the argument, 100% convinces us that the conclusion is correct.

Now let's break down the argument:

Conclusion: almost anyone can be an expert
Evidence: anyone who can convince someone of his qualifications is an expert.

So, we want the correct answer to get us from the evidence to the conclusion; in other words:

anyone can convince someone that he's qualified + correct answer = anyone can be an expert.

(A) clearly completes our argument equation.

(D), on the other hand, has nothing to do with connecting convincing someone that you're qualified and being an expert; (D), in fact, goes in the wrong direction. Do we care what people who are already experts have done? No, we care about people who are becoming experts.

In much simpler form, the argument is:

All dogs are mammals, therefore all dogs are warm blooded.

(A) is the equivalent of "all mammals are warm blooded", which clearly completes the argument.

(D) is the equivalent of "all warm blooded things are mammals", which doesn't prove that dogs have to be warm blooded.

Answer A seems to be logical one out of other answer choices