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

Redeem

Assumption in a supporter role

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

Assumption in a supporter role

by avik.ch » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:39 am
There are two kinds of Assumption. Assumptions in a supporter role and in a defender role.

My doubt is that what is the difference between a assumption in a supporter role and strengthener.

For example,lets consider this simple argument :

All people of city X was allowed to vote. Hence Joe was allowed to vote.

Assumption : Joe was a resident of city X.

But If I am asked to strengthen this argument, my answer would be same. So does the assumption is a supporter role act in a same way as a strengthener ?

If this is true, then the true assumption will only be an assumption in a defender role.

I understand that in GMAT, one stimulus will be accompanied by only one question stem - so I think that this stimulus presented by me above would not be accompanied by the an assumption question and a strengthening question.

But its better if any one can explain me how these things work ?


All the terminologies used by me above are taken from Powerscore CR Bible.
Last edited by avik.ch on Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:02 am
Assumption is the necessary one.

Strengthen is unnecessary.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:56 pm
I received a PM on this one...

Here are some postings on how to approach assumption questions. I have taught the LSAT and the GMAT for many years. The LSAT has many very difficult assumption questions. I have never found it necessary to divide between so-called "supporter" and "defender" assumptions. Of course others certainly may find that these things work for them and that is great!!

But if this distinction is confusing you then you can choose to apply a different technique. You do not have to take what is offered if it does not work for you. I have some links below to postings where I discuss approaching assumption questions. Maybe what is below will work better for you. Either way remember it is your test and so you should choose the things that work for you.


https://www.beatthegmat.com/nuclear-powe ... 29-15.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/an-odd-cr-fr ... 68008.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/reduce-fatal ... 68915.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/computers-as ... tml#302237

https://www.beatthegmat.com/horses-hoove ... tml#289122

https://www.beatthegmat.com/nuclear-powe ... tml#296304
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:49 am
Thanked: 1 times

by vidhya16 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:04 am
Thanks David.

Vidhya
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:3 members

by GmatVerbal » Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:46 pm
I am not sure the difference between supporter and defender role, but one thing to keep in mind is
what are given;

All people of city X was allowed to vote. Hence Joe was allowed to vote.

premise: All people of city X was allowed to vote
conclusion: Hence Joe was allowed to vote

But nobody knows the conclusion is correct.

Now,the assumption question reads some where along these lines:
If the conclusion ( or above statements) are true, what is/are implied assumptions.
The key point to note is - its now given that conclusion is correct.
so "Joe was a resident of city X" is a assumption ( required for the conclusion to be true).


Now consider strengthen question:

premise: All people of city X was allowed to vote
conclusion: Hence Joe was allowed to vote

The strengthen question stem will be along these lines: which of the following statements strengthens the conclusion. So at this point conclusion "Hence Joe was allowed to vote" still not proven;

And a strengthen statement makes the conclusion more likely to be correct. Some times it be some times sufficient to prove the conclusion.
strengthen: last month Joe was a resident of City X; This strengthens the conclusion, because Joe may most likely resident of City X now;
But the statement "Joe is a resident of city X", not only strengthens but also sufficient to establish the conclusion.


--
OK. I have briefly read power CR and defenders are nothing but negations of weaken statements; There is no big difference in how to treat them;

Joe is not a resident of any other city; This is an assumption given the conclusion is correct.

This is also a strengthen statement if conclusion is not yet proven.

weaken statement could be: Joe is a resident of city Y;














avik.ch wrote:There are two kinds of Assumption. Assumptions in a supporter role and in a defender role.

My doubt is that what is the difference between a assumption in a supporter role and strengthener.

For example,lets consider this simple argument :

All people of city X was allowed to vote. Hence Joe was allowed to vote.

Assumption : Joe was a resident of city X.

But If I am asked to strengthen this argument, my answer would be same. So does the assumption is a supporter role act in a same way as a strengthener ?

If this is true, then the true assumption will only be an assumption in a defender role.

I understand that in GMAT, one stimulus will be accompanied by only one question stem - so I think that this stimulus presented by me above would not be accompanied by the an assumption question and a strengthening question.

But its better if any one can explain me how these things work ?


All the terminologies used by me above are taken from Powerscore CR Bible.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:14 pm
i received a private message about this thread.

i've never heard of this difference between a "defender" assumption and a "supporter" assumption -- that sounds like something from some book or another -- but it sounds as though you don't understand the (rather fundamental) difference between a STRENGTHENER and an ASSUMPTION.
here's the difference:
ASSUMPTION = ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for the argument
STRENGTHENER = HELPS / ADDS WEIGHT TO the argument, but is not necessarily required

as a result, assumptions are usually one of two varieties:
1/ very, very basic underlying facts
2/ assumptions about what won't happen or isn't true (often required in arguments whose conclusion is that some alternative thing will happen or is true)

on the other hand, strengtheners can be all sorts of exotic statements, because they aren't things that are required -- they are just things that help out the argument if they are, in fact, true.

--

ex:
Ron was back in Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago. Therefore, Ron must have eaten at Rincón de Buenos Aires*.

one example of an ASSUMPTION:
Ron had time to go to a restaurant when he was in Las Vegas.
--> this is something that absolutely HAS to be true for this argument to work. i.e., if this is false, then the argument is totally invalid.
--> notice that this statement is not terribly effective as a strengthener, because it's so basic and fundamental. i.e., just the fact that i had time to go eat doesn't build a very strong case that i went to this one particular restaurant ... but it's still necessary for that to be true.

one example of a STRENGTHENER THAT IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION:
Ron had a receipt from Rincón de Buenos Aires in his bag when he came back from Las Vegas.
--> note that this doesn't HAVE to be true; i.e., i still could have eaten at the restaurant even if i had no receipt in my bag.
--> however, IF i do have such a receipt, then that makes a strong case (it's good "circumstantial evidence", as they say in court) that i actually went to the restaurant.

hope that helps.

--

*amazing Argentine restaurant that serves big empanadas for only $1.40 each!
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1