This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely literate. Run-on sentences, slang, and perfectly dreadful grammar appear regularly throughout. Anything that poorly written cannot be making very much sense.
Which of the following identifies an assumption in the argument above?
A) This editorial was written by someone other than the usual editor.
B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are poor in style or grammar.
C) The language of an argument is indicative of its validity.
D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are poor in style and grammar.
E) The author of the editorial purposely uses poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument.
[spoiler] I dont believe the answer could be C how can somebody link nonsensical with validity? Anyways this indeed was the best choice. [/spoiler]
editorial cannot be a good
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
- Tani
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location: St. Louis
- Thanked: 312 times
- Followed by:90 members
The stimulus tells us the argument is bad. The evidence is that the grammar is bad. Therefore the author is judging the argument based on its grammar.
The question is not whether it makes sense to judge an argument on its grammar, the question is whether in fact the author judged the argument on its grammar - and he did.
The question is not whether it makes sense to judge an argument on its grammar, the question is whether in fact the author judged the argument on its grammar - and he did.
Tani Wolff
- hja379
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:10 pm
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:2 members
Choice A: 'Someone' is irrelevant for the argument.arora007 wrote:This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely literate. Run-on sentences, slang, and perfectly dreadful grammar appear regularly throughout. Anything that poorly written cannot be making very much sense.
Which of the following identifies an assumption in the argument above?
A) This editorial was written by someone other than the usual editor.
B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are poor in style or grammar.
C) The language of an argument is indicative of its validity.
D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are poor in style and grammar.
E) The author of the editorial purposely uses poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument.
Choice B: Doesn't matter if 10% or the editorials are bad or 100%. Any material written poorly is not good.
Choice D: Same reason as B.
Choice E: The author can do whatever he want. He may be so sick of writing and now probably preparing for GMAT and focusing on AWA instead of his editorials.
Choice C: If the language of the argument is NOT indicative of its validity, then you CANNOT make a conclusion that "poorly written material cannot make any sense."
What if we make this a 'weaken' question?
Which of the following if true would weaken the author's claim?
H) There have been editorials, inspite of their grammatical errors, were considered masterpieces because of their content and logic.
Not to confuse you, but if there exists another reason (in other words, if you negate choice C above) it would weaken the conclusion and if style is the only indicator (Choice C), it must be the assumption.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
@arora
I think u have mistaken language of argument for the relevance/substance/sense whereas the option really refers to the grammar
I think u have mistaken language of argument for the relevance/substance/sense whereas the option really refers to the grammar
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
I now see how the assumption bridges the gap between the two.Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:The stimulus tells us the argument is bad. The evidence is that the grammar is bad. Therefore the author is judging the argument based on its grammar.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:36 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:2 members
Use the negation test for assumptions.arora007 wrote:This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely literate. Run-on sentences, slang, and perfectly dreadful grammar appear regularly throughout. Anything that poorly written cannot be making very much sense.
Which of the following identifies an assumption in the argument above?
A) This editorial was written by someone other than the usual editor.
B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are poor in style or grammar.
C) The language of an argument is indicative of its validity.
D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are poor in style and grammar.
E) The author of the editorial purposely uses poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument.
[spoiler] I dont believe the answer could be C how can somebody link nonsensical with validity? Anyways this indeed was the best choice. [/spoiler]
A)This editorial was NOT written by someone other than the usual editor. Makes no difference; arguement can still be true.
B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are NOT poor in style or grammar. Makes no difference; arguement can still be true.
D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are NOT poor in style and grammar. Makes no difference; arguement can still be true.
E) The author of the editorial DOES NOT purposely use poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument. Makes no difference; arguement can still be true.
Note: watch out for keywords that limit the scope of the arguement, such as D)"majority" and B)"very few".
You can use process of elimination, or you can arrive at C through deduction. barely literate => poor arguement. It's a leap so we need: "The language of an argument is indicative of its validity."
C wins!
- Tani
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location: St. Louis
- Thanked: 312 times
- Followed by:90 members
The stimulus says the argument is bad because the grammar is bad. For the author to be correct, you must assume that the quality of hte grammar detremines the quality of the argument.
That's exactly what C says.
That's exactly what C says.
Tani Wolff
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:06 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
- GMAT Score:710
Chose E. Terrible.
got confused by the word "language" - somehow felt that language could be referring to anything other than English.
Maybe "syntax" could have been used. Can't complain!
got confused by the word "language" - somehow felt that language could be referring to anything other than English.
Maybe "syntax" could have been used. Can't complain!
- wingsoffire
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:50 am
- karthikpandian19
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
- Thanked: 165 times
- Followed by:70 members
I got the answer C, by process of elimination
arora007 wrote:This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely literate. Run-on sentences, slang, and perfectly dreadful grammar appear regularly throughout. Anything that poorly written cannot be making very much sense.
Which of the following identifies an assumption in the argument above?
A) This editorial was written by someone other than the usual editor.
B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are poor in style or grammar.
C) The language of an argument is indicative of its validity.
D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are poor in style and grammar.
E) The author of the editorial purposely uses poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument.
[spoiler] I dont believe the answer could be C how can somebody link nonsensical with validity? Anyways this indeed was the best choice. [/spoiler]
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON
---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" ---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON
---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" ---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:36 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:4 members
My formula is this , find conclusion ie "Anything that poorly written cannot be making very much sense." . Find the closest to this and that comes out to be C , as far as validity is concern , its hard to digest but its the best POSSIBLE ans , not the best ans.