| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
joshi.komal
Rising GMAT Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 74
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 3 times in 3 posts
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: Unable to identify assumption of this GMATPrep Question |
 |
|
Hi Folks,
I am unable to understand this CR question on the GMAT Test Prep. I would highly appreciate if someone could throw some light on what should be the general strategy for attacking such types of questions.
Thanks
Komal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
moledude
Just gettin' started!
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 0 times in 0 posts
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sharon is calculating and basing her claim on statistics that on average (blah blah blah), assuming (and also ignoring the fact) that unemployment can often occur more frequently in certain geographical regions in the country, instead of "spreading out" all over.
Does this make sense? I hope this helps.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sankruth
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 195
Thanks given: 11
Thanked 9 times in 9 posts
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moledude wrote: | unemployment can often occur more frequently in certain geographical regions in the country, instead of "spreading out" all over.
Does this make sense? I hope this helps. |
The assumption Sharon makes is that unemployment cannot occur in geographically isolated areas.
I would rate this as not one of the best GMAt arguments, though it is a from the OG! I will give my explanations later but here is how I arrived at the answer.
I feel that the only way to solve this question is to find the answer using Process of Elimination.
Sharon reckons that unpolyment is about 5% (1 in 20). So, if anyone knows 50 workers they will also know 1 or more people who are unemployed.
C looks tempting but since the question is asking for an assumption the Sharon makes, we must ignore Roland's argument. Also Sharon's argument only refers to how many unemployed people will someone know not what proportion of people out of the total population that will know someone unemployed.
D, similar to C refers to Rolands argument and hence is not relevant.
E refers to fear that is created by knowing statistics of unemployed, which is irrelevant.
A Sounds good but it fails the negation test. Even if the normal levels are exceeded, still someone who knows 50 people will know 1 or more people who are likely to be unemployed. So it is not a critical to the argument.
Hence B, as no other answer is good enough. However I have a problem with B too.
Imagine a community with 15% unemployment but the overall unemployement of the country can still be 5%. In other words other commnuties with less than 5% unemployment compensate the 15% unemployment of one community.
So, if a person lives within the community with say 1% unemployment the likelihood is that he may not know a single person who is unemployed. But if all communities have the same 5% then the statistics will be true across all communities.
My question is, it is very much possible that a person knows people from other communities (with greater than 5% unemployment) and therefore the stats still hold true even if unemployment is concentrated in geographically isolated segments.
Sorry for this long-winded post. I hope I have got my point across. Im keen to hear others opinion on this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EricLien9122
Rising GMAT Star
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 97
Thanks given: 3
Thanked 2 times in 2 posts
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can anyone comment on this question?
I still don't see why B is the correct answer. I appreciate your help.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jatinder
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 199
Thanks given: 16
Thanked 3 times in 3 posts
Target GMAT Score: 760
GMAT Score: 610
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sankruth wrote: | | moledude wrote: | unemployment can often occur more frequently in certain geographical regions in the country, instead of "spreading out" all over.
Does this make sense? I hope this helps. |
The assumption Sharon makes is that unemployment cannot occur in geographically isolated areas.
I would rate this as not one of the best GMAt arguments, though it is a from the OG! I will give my explanations later but here is how I arrived at the answer.
I feel that the only way to solve this question is to find the answer using Process of Elimination.
Sharon reckons that unpolyment is about 5% (1 in 20). So, if anyone knows 50 workers they will also know 1 or more people who are unemployed.
C looks tempting but since the question is asking for an assumption the Sharon makes, we must ignore Roland's argument. Also Sharon's argument only refers to how many unemployed people will someone know not what proportion of people out of the total population that will know someone unemployed.
D, similar to C refers to Rolands argument and hence is not relevant.
E refers to fear that is created by knowing statistics of unemployed, which is irrelevant.
A Sounds good but it fails the negation test. Even if the normal levels are exceeded, still someone who knows 50 people will know 1 or more people who are likely to be unemployed. So it is not a critical to the argument.
Hence B, as no other answer is good enough. However I have a problem with B too.
Imagine a community with 15% unemployment but the overall unemployement of the country can still be 5%. In other words other commnuties with less than 5% unemployment compensate the 15% unemployment of one community.
So, if a person lives within the community with say 1% unemployment the likelihood is that he may not know a single person who is unemployed. But if all communities have the same 5% then the statistics will be true across all communities.
My question is, it is very much possible that a person knows people from other communities (with greater than 5% unemployment) and therefore the stats still hold true even if unemployment is concentrated in geographically isolated segments.
Sorry for this long-winded post. I hope I have got my point across. Im keen to hear others opinion on this. |
Point taken.
But B says not Normally concentrated.
--Normally is the keyword
Moreover, some GMAT assumption are framed this way only,
i.e the correct answer of some assumption question support the arguement rather than being necessary to the arguement.
Try this question:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/og-11e-q57-help-please-t21037.html
:
this is more of a assumption question rather than inference.
_________________
Keep flying |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
EricLien9122
Rising GMAT Star
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 97
Thanks given: 3
Thanked 2 times in 2 posts
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually stuck between A and B then crossed out B.
I actually thought B weakened the argument, because if it's not normally concentrated, then Shanon can't make a generalized statement?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dileepsinha
Rising GMAT Star
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 60
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 0 times in 0 posts
Target GMAT Score: 770
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
A- normal moderate level of unemployment is 5%...hence it will be incorrect to say..that "RARELY exceed"
C: the number can not ALWAYS be higher than 90%; there could be someone who knows only the persons who are employed for some reason or the other...maybe he is a loner and he knows only those who are employed
B: if Sharon says "if a person knows 50 people....now a person can know other people only if they are not geographically isolated....
Hence B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
