Critical Reasoning

In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades. The evidence of this explosion is that the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.

The reasoning above assumes which one of the following?

A. All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable options.

B. There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.

C. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of professional companies devoted to other performing arts.

D The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades.

E. The 45 most recently founded opera companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.

what do you guy think about this CR

I would go for E

I won't give the answer now...just a tip -

Remember that this is an assumption question. A difficult assumption question - but not unfair.

Where this differs from a regular strengthen question is that you are looking for the answer choice that does the most harm when taken away or negated.

Something to think about:

Answer choices that are too strong or too specific are usually not the best options for an assumption. A car does not need to be a specific brand or color to get you where you want to go so the equivalent of an answer that requires a yellow sports car would be too specific. And it is very rare that an assumption requires "all" or "none" of something. For example, if my conclusion is that Usain Bolt of Jamaica can run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds it is NOT an assumption that ALL people can run in under 10 seconds but it is necessary that "Some" or "at least one" person be able to go under 10 seconds.

Let's get some answers and some logic on this one...

IMO B

Before reading David's comments - i drilled down to B and E..but chose E...

After reading his comments (and seeing 'ALL...') i think E is not correct - answer shd be B..

I would go for E.

IMO E.

Among A, B and E, B is better.

In existence: 70
Founded in the last 30 years: 45
So of these, 25 were from before 30 years.

IF we can establish that >45 had existed 30 years ago and about 20 of them ceased operations, then authors argument wont hold as atleast 46 companies had existed before 30 years.

Key is that 'Found' could include 'founded' and 'ceased'

A: All 70 are commercially viable companies: This in itself does not preclude that 3 decades ago, there were more companies founded and ceased operations
B: CORRECT.
E: What if the company picked up enthusiasts along the way rather than identifying potential enthusiasts at setup? does not do a thing to argument.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:I won't give the answer now...just a tip -

Remember that this is an assumption question. A difficult assumption question - but not unfair.

Where this differs from a regular strengthen question is that you are looking for the answer choice that does the most harm when taken away or negated.

Something to think about:

Answer choices that are too strong or too specific are usually not the best options for an assumption. A car does not need to be a specific brand or color to get you where you want to go so the equivalent of an answer that requires a yellow sports car would be too specific. And it is very rare that an assumption requires "all" or "none" of something. For example, if my conclusion is that Usain Bolt of Jamaica can run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds it is NOT an assumption that ALL people can run in under 10 seconds but it is necessary that "Some" or "at least one" person be able to go under 10 seconds.

Let's get some answers and some logic on this one...

so...so....ehhh....
the CR says that recently ( from the starting of 30 years until now) the public has started to like opera but later they dont, thus there has been an explosion of public interest in opera in 30 years, but before 30 years,( public seemed not to like opera... just now....) and the CR gave out evidences: 70 professors are so active now and 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.... ( i dont understand much about the sentence " 45 professors were founded over the course of the last 30 years. can you please turn it into another meaning which is easier to understand?
so...B????

OA is B.

Thanks for posting this one "diebeatsthegmat."

Nice work OV25, Puneet, the Phoenix and others.

The conclusion to this question is "there has been an explosion of public interest in, an enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades." The only evidence that you are given for this explosion of interest is the fact that 45 opera companies were founded over the past 30 years.

In a strengthen question you would be looking to amplify this evidence to make it more powerful. Think of your position in a strengthen question as one of power - you already have some evidence and you want some more!

Choice E would be a great example of a powerful "strengthen" answer that gives you more evidence to go on, "The 45 most recently founded opera companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience." This would really amplify your evidence. So for a regular strengthen this would be the answer. D is also good for a strengthen, "The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades." So not only have new companies been founded but the audience is bigger, too. Even A is a good strengthen answer.

Yet, in this case the fact that it is an assumption question is all important. Instead of operating from a position of power and looking for more evidence, on an assumption question you should think of yourself and under attack and nervously trying to protect the evidence that you have from attack. So, you want to imagine the bad things that can happen to your evidence that 45 opera companies were founded in the last 30 years. For an assumption don't expect strong new evidence (what you might call a sword) but look for an answer choice that protects what you already have (a shield).

On this question OV25 has exhibited just the right level of fear - "what if the companies that were founded include lots of companies that were founded and went bankrupt later?" Or what if other companies went bankrupt? What if more companies went out of business than the 45 that started? Then what happens to your evidence? It is not so good anymore. You need a shield to protect you from this assault.

Choice B is that shield. If you establish that fewer than 45 companies went bankrupt then you still have some evidence left from the 45 companies that were founded. So this protects you from the attack.

And if you negate B you can see the damage of not having this answer choice. The negation would be "At least 45 opera companies ceased operations." So there goes your conclusion about an explosion of interest!

Diebeatsthegmat - the sentence is saying that 45 opera companies were founded in the last 30 years and the word "professional" just means that the people who are singers in the opera companies get paid enough to make a living doing it. This is opposed to amateur where people are not paid or paid little...

Hope that helps!

Yep. Choice E would be a great strengthener but it's not an assumption. The above expert's metaphor of sword (strengthener) and shield (assumption) is great. However, many would find choice E tempting because for example it responds to the denial test: if E isn't true, the argument doesn't seem to hold.

There's a good reason for that: choice E essentially restates the argument.

The argument is a causal one, and can be paraphrased as:

"Enthusiasm for opera is what caused the increase in the number of opera companies."

Then, we can see that choice E essentially RESTATES the argument.

But because assumptions are UNSTATED choice E must not be an assumption, and is, thus, incorrect.

(On GMAT assumption questions, choices that RESTATE or CONTRADICT stated evidence are automatically incorrect.)

(Choice E is a great strengthener because stn/wkn questions instruct you to treat the choices as "true". Thus, in a strengthen question, the question stem would be telling you to treat choice E as true. Since choice E restates the argument, effectively we would be treating the argument as true, no questions asked. Well, if the argument is true, then obviously it is strengthened).

Very good information shared by both the experts .. really helpful.

Thanks to both of you and the origiantor of question for posting such a good question!

Regards,

Pranay

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is B.

Thanks for posting this one "diebeatsthegmat."

Nice work OV25, Puneet, the Phoenix and others.

The conclusion to this question is "there has been an explosion of public interest in, an enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades." The only evidence that you are given for this explosion of interest is the fact that 45 opera companies were founded over the past 30 years.

In a strengthen question you would be looking to amplify this evidence to make it more powerful. Think of your position in a strengthen question as one of power - you already have some evidence and you want some more!

Choice E would be a great example of a powerful "strengthen" answer that gives you more evidence to go on, "The 45 most recently founded opera companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience." This would really amplify your evidence. So for a regular strengthen this would be the answer. D is also good for a strengthen, "The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades." So not only have new companies been founded but the audience is bigger, too. Even A is a good strengthen answer.

Yet, in this case the fact that it is an assumption question is all important. Instead of operating from a position of power and looking for more evidence, on an assumption question you should think of yourself and under attack and nervously trying to protect the evidence that you have from attack. So, you want to imagine the bad things that can happen to your evidence that 45 opera companies were founded in the last 30 years. For an assumption don't expect strong new evidence (what you might call a sword) but look for an answer choice that protects what you already have (a shield).

On this question OV25 has exhibited just the right level of fear - "what if the companies that were founded include lots of companies that were founded and went bankrupt later?" Or what if other companies went bankrupt? What if more companies went out of business than the 45 that started? Then what happens to your evidence? It is not so good anymore. You need a shield to protect you from this assault.

Choice B is that shield. If you establish that fewer than 45 companies went bankrupt then you still have some evidence left from the 45 companies that were founded. So this protects you from the attack.

And if you negate B you can see the damage of not having this answer choice. The negation would be "At least 45 opera companies ceased operations." So there goes your conclusion about an explosion of interest!

Diebeatsthegmat - the sentence is saying that 45 opera companies were founded in the last 30 years and the word "professional" just means that the people who are singers in the opera companies get paid enough to make a living doing it. This is opposed to amateur where people are not paid or paid little...

Hope that helps!

yeah, its so helpful, david, thank you a lot....
i was so dumb and i dont know why.... actually i do understand the sentence saying that the 45 companies have been founded for 30 years but i was so stubborn and i devide the word " found" and over to translate it into my comprehansive feeling and dun want to understand... its so dangerous and i hope i wont feel and understand that way in test day....
thanks again, david

Thank you experts David and Testluv

I want to take this chance to ask a general question.
I heard that there are 2 ways to strengthen/weanken an argument. The first way is increase belief in or doubt on an assumption. The second is to support/weaken the conclusion directly.
I see that most strengthening/weakening problems in the og books belong to the first way. I do not understand how the second way of strengthener/weakener work. Please, give me an example of the second way of strengthening/weakening . Thank you.

I noticed a grammar issue on the 2nd sentence of the argument in the 1st clause. Correct me if I'm wrong. "The evidence of this explosion is that the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America" sounds like an incomplete sentence. The 1st clause either shouldn't rely on the 2nd clause to be complete or is modifying the 2nd clause. Not that it made too much difference in how I read it to answer the question, but it did look funny to me.

Here's what I thought it should say with my correction in bold: The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.