This is a very odd question. What "may be assumed from the passage" doesn't really make much sense. Should we treat this is an inference or assumption question? On the one hand, as we see "assumed" the question might be asking for an assumption on which the argument depends. On the other hand, the question asks for what "may" be assumed as though it wants us to infer something. The question stem is vague, and the answer choices are not GMATesque.


What's the source? (I would avoid practicing with CR questions from this source).

Testluv wrote:This is a very odd question. What "may be assumed from the passage" doesn't really make much sense. Should we treat this is an inference or assumption question? On the one hand, as we see "assumed" the question might be asking for an assumption on which the argument depends. On the other hand, the question asks for what "may" be assumed as though it wants us to infer something. The question stem is vague, and the answer choices are not GMATesque.


What's the source? (I would avoid practicing with CR questions from this source).

i dont know what source it is from but i got this CR from the forum of gmatclub.com and the answer posted is B... and i dont really understand it but i am going to be convinced with the answer but dont really 100% understand the text it says

The answer is F: this is a bad question not worth worrying about.

In layman language :
The passage talks about -
criminal at the time of crime, is very calm i.e. sane; if criminal was insane at the time of crime , refer the preclude ( prevent from happening) - criminal will fail to execute the crime.


"insanity" is to serve as a defense to a crime,

Not, we are told in the first line - this clearly means as an outsider we think insanity relieves the offender of criminal responsibility but, indeed the criminal is in peace with his mind and that's he succeeds in executing it.

Insanity - means a severely ordered state of mind - and in context with the passage ---

If the criminal mind is disordered - he/she will fail in executing the crime.


Insanity at the time of the offense, we are told, relieves the offender of criminal responsibility. This may mean either that "insanity" is to serve as evidence that precludes (prevent from happening) establishing-by leaving in doubt-some material element of an offense, or that "insanity" is to serve as a defense to a crime, even though each of its elements can be established beyond doubt, to protect a preferred value threatened by the imposition of an authorized sanction.


or that "insanity" is to serve as a defense to a crime, , to protect a preferred value threatened by the imposition of an authorized sanction.

( look it clearly says insanity is to serve as a defense to a crime - crime won't happen)

Please note, the modifiers are in Italics, feel free to ignore them in this case.


Which of the following may be assumed from the preceding passage?

a) Insanity at the time of trial is insufficient to deter conviction

b) Sanity may be a necessary and material element for the commission of a crime

( This clearly, refer that Sanity - soundness may be necessary for the commission of a crime )


c) The defense of insanity may be unnecessary since there are other more sophisticated means of proving innocence today.

d) The question of insanity has little bearing on the question of criminal responsibility and conviction

e) The insanity defense should be abolished as we have seen continued evidence of its abuse



Hope this helps....

This one needs a bit of understanding....no doubt it takes a bit longer than straightforward ones...however the question is not in error by any means

I think there are two potential issues with this one 1) the language is convoluted (one way for testmakers to make it tough) and 2) question type is unusual

1) Yes. As the gentleman described, it needs that type of reading discipline to punctuate your logic as good as those indicated in the paragraph

In essense, the paragraph is about 'insanity plea' could be used two ways but either way cannot convict.

2) Qn type -- following may be assumed. In essence this is saying what could you infer from the passage. If it had said 'must be', then it is an assumption qn.


So I think you got it....

Conditional stimulus: cannot convict --> insanity plea

Infer: convict --> NOT INSANE is required

ov25 wrote: 2) Qn type -- following may be assumed. In essence this is saying what could you infer from the passage. If it had said 'must be', then it is an assumption qn.

That's just not proper terminology. This question is badly designed and is not worth worrying about.

And this:

So I think you got it....

Conditional stimulus: cannot convict --> insanity plea

Infer: convict --> NOT INSANE is required

is incorrect formal logic.

this question is either from knewton or manhattan and answer is B

An "assumption" is something that is taken as true without proof.

An "inference" is something that is proven true by a set of facts.

Are these terms equivalent?

Is it fair of a testmaker to expect a test-taker who understands the categorical distinction between "assumption" and "inference" to interpret the term "assumed" as "inferred"?

The official testmaker would never make such a mistake. And it is not a meaningless mistake. This would confuse a GMAT CR expert and for the wrong reasons.

Regardless of the source, this question is flawed in design.
***

Now, yes, it is true that if we replace "may be assumed" with "may be properly inferred" then choice B is correct. In fact, the tenative language of choice B ("may") reminds us of an important tactic in inference questions: answer choices that use tentative language are more likely to be correct than those that use extreme language.

dada,

When I was going thru the question ( before reading the argument) , I was just wondering / expecting what Deepak would have written..

As expected, u vented out at this poor design of the question. Hahhha....



As pradeep pointed out, it "may be " from Knewton.