BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Extremely Hard CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:10 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

Extremely Hard CR

by navdeepbajwa » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:48 am
Can you please explain Why answer is B not A
please explain why A is not right
It is mistaken to attribute Zanco's failure; to the publicity about the supposedly inhuman working conditions~in the foreign factories that furnish Zanco with many of its parts. Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds . After all, plenty of other companies are supplied by factories with working conditions just as bad as those in Zanco's suppliers, and the public does not hesitate to buy their products.

The argument in the passage is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) People are unlikely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.
(B) People who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers are aware of those conditions.
(C) The working conditions in the factories that supply Zanco with parts are not as bad as has been claimed.
(D) Zanco's sales did not dip sharply after the poor working conditions in its suppliers' factories became known.
(E) The poor quality of Zanco's products is not a result of the working conditions in the foreign factories where its parts are manufactured.
Last edited by navdeepbajwa on Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:53 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:30 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:710

by Gaurav Yadav » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:20 am
Dear Navdeep,

i think u forgot to state the question stem. I suppose it must be asking for and inherent assumption in the passage.

You are going wrong because what you think to be a conclusion is actually only a sub-conclusion that supports the main conlusion. The conclusion is the very first statement of the paragraph.

"It is mistaken to attribute Zanco's failure; to the publicity about the supposedly inhuman working conditions~in the foreign factories that furnish Zanco with many of its parts."


It is only the "publicity" that matters; A lot of companies could be unethical, that never makes a difference unless and until public knows about that.

So, the author is assuming that the public already knows that all other companies are also procuring items from the factories with inhuman work conditions.Still the public goes for the products other than those of Zanco's. Thus, public does not bycott the product on moral grounds.

(A) supports the subconclusion but only choice (B) suports the main conclusion.

Hope that helps!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:03 pm
@Navdeep,

Please hide the answer with the spoiler. Sorry but there is no fun of attempting a question if you already know the answer.


Thanks,
Vikas
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:10 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

Re

by navdeepbajwa » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:44 pm
thanks gaurav I got it

And Vikas i will keep that in mind next time
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 12:26 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by adam15 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm
when I tried answering this question, I ended with two choice A and B. I thought for awhile and try not to end in "extreme case", which is "A", it states " products" which sounds general. the best anwser will be B. please, correct me, if wrong
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:10 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by navdeepbajwa » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:31 am
Please explain why A is wrong ?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:10 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by navdeepbajwa » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:42 am
kaplan instructors please help
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:36 pm
navdeepbajwa wrote:kaplan instructors please help
Why? Is this a Kaplan question? (You didn't cite the source).
Please explain why A is wrong ?
Anyways, in assumption questions you should avoid choices that restate evidence; by definition, an assumption is unstated.

A corollary of this is that in assumption questions, you should avoid choices that clearly contradict evidence; the evidence the author uses to maker her point is always "given" to her (ie, we have to take all evidence as true--we are allowed to assume that authors are not lying).

Choice A reads:

(A) People are unlikely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.

This isn't an assumption. Instead, this comes close to being stated evidence--the very last sentence of the passage tells us that, in fact, the public does not hesitate to buy products from other companies that have similar questionable morals--companies just as bad as Zanco's suppliers.

Another way we can tell that choice A is restating evidence is that if we deny choice A, it will clearly contradict the last sentence of the passage: If people ARE likely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase, then we are left wondering about why the public doesn't hesitate to buy products from companies just as bad as Zanco's suppliers.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:10 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by navdeepbajwa » Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:08 am
Thanks a lot testluv for an instant reply. Sorry for not mentioning the source the passage is from Kaplan 800.Great explanation
Testluv wrote: Another way we can tell that choice A is restating evidence is that if we deny choice A, it will clearly contradict the last sentence of the passage: If people ARE likely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase, then we are left wondering about why the public doesn't hesitate to buy products from companies just as bad as Zanco's suppliers.
Testluv every GMAT bok explains if we deny an assumption the argument falls apart
If we deny B the conclusion does not make sense and the argument falls apart as we are left wondering whether bad publicity or defective products is the cause of Zanco's failure So B is true
If we deny A then it contradicts the evidence; doesn't that makes the argument falls apart too
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:49 am
If we deny A then it contradicts the evidence; doesn't that makes the argument falls apart too
Nope. The difference, as I wrote above, is that evidence is always true information (while the conclusion is something whose truth he is trying to convince you about). If we were to pick a choice that contradicted evidence, we would be treating true information as false. Also, if we were to pick a choice that restated evidence, we would be saying that the author is assuming information he stated (which is wrong because the assumption is always unstated).

That's why you should avoid choices that restate or contradict evidence.

The reason the denial of choice A hurts the argument is that denying choice A contradicts evidence. And the denial of choice A contradicts stated evidence because original choice A is pretty much just restating evidence (the last sentence of the passage).

Again, the evidence is always true information "given" to the author--we can never contradict it or doubt its veracity. Even if you find the evidence otherwise debatable or even bizarre, you must always accept it as true. So if the evidence is "cats bark", then fine cats bark. You then have to figure out how that evidence (no matter how bizarre it is) isn't enough to establish whatever conclusion the author was trying to convince you about.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:10 pm
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by navdeepbajwa » Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:10 pm
Thanks Great Explanations
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:52 pm
I am pretty sure that the right Answer is A.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1