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

Redeem

CR - Assumption

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

CR - Assumption

by karthikpandian19 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:05 am
Television service providers with high definition technology broadcast special stations that only televisions with high definition capabilities can receive. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of television service providers with high definition technology in Zorskan increased from ten to seventeen. However, since the number of high definition televisions in Zorskan was approximately the same in 2009 as in 2006, the number of Zorskans able to access the stations probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


(A) In 2009 Zorskans who did not own high definition televisions could not view any stations from television service providers that began operating in Zorskan after 2006.

(B) Although there was no significant increase in the number of televisions with high definition receiving capabilities in Zorskan between 2006 and 2009, this was not true of neighboring counties.

(C) Few if any of the high definition service providers that began operating after 2006 provided service to areas of Zorskan not previously served by high definition providers.

(D) Equipping an already existing television service provider with high definition technology does not increase the number of televisions with access to that provider's services.

(E) In 2009 most Zorskans who resided within the service area of a high definition provider already had a high definition television.


I am kind of lost in the reasoning here
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
Thanked: 322 times
Followed by:143 members

by Kasia@EconomistGMAT » Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:37 am
Television service providers with high definition technology broadcast special stations that only televisions with high definition capabilities can receive.(premise 1) Between 2006 and 2009, the number of television service providers with high definition technology in Zorskan increased from ten to seventeen.(premise 2) However, since the number of high definition televisions in Zorskan was approximately the same in 2009 as in 2006, the number of Zorskans able to access the stations probably did not increase significantly. (CONCLUSION)

A - refers to ALL tv stations so it is IRRELEVANT
B - what happened in neighboring countries is of NO INTEREST
D - this statement does not influence the argument in any way
E - this answer neither strengthens nor weakens the argument
C - correct, if this statement were not true, it could mean that the number of Zorskans able to access the stations increased significantly
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course

"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.

"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/

"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
Thanked: 214 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:740

by Birottam Dutta » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:44 pm
Television service providers with high definition technology broadcast special stations that only televisions with high definition capabilities can receive. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of television service providers with high definition technology in Zorskan increased from ten to seventeen. However, since the number of high definition televisions in Zorskan was approximately the same in 2009 as in 2006, the number of Zorskans able to access the stations probably did not increase significantly.

The argument here is that HD service providers can be used only by those TVs which support HD. The number of HD service providers increased from 10 to 17 between 2006 and 2009. However, since the HD TVs did not increase in that period, the conclusion is that number of consumers using HD did not significantly increase.
The assumption we are looking for in this argument is that there is no other factor involved that may determine the number of HD users.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


(A) In 2009 Zorskans who did not own high definition televisions could not view any stations from television service providers that began operating in Zorskan after 2006. --- Irrelevant because this talks of all stations and we need information about HD stations.

(B) Although there was no significant increase in the number of televisions with high definition receiving capabilities in Zorskan between 2006 and 2009, this was not true of neighboring counties.--Out of scope as neighbouring countries are not discussed in this argument.

(C) Few if any of the high definition service providers that began operating after 2006 provided service to areas of Zorskan not previously served by high definition providers. --- This is definitely a factor that needs to be considered before making the conclusion as to whether post 2006, the service providers expanded to cater to other parts of Zorskan as well. It would be an essential assumption for making the conclusion. Correct.

(D) Equipping an already existing television service provider with high definition technology does not increase the number of televisions with access to that provider's services. --- Irrelevant

(E) In 2009 most Zorskans who resided within the service area of a high definition provider already had a high definition television.--- Again, this is close but we need to find an assumption that points to why the number of Zorskans able to access HD TV did not increase significantly between 2006 and 2009. This talks of the situation in 2009 but what we want is a comparison between 2006 and 2009 in order to make the conclusion. So, incorrect.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

by karthikpandian19 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:50 pm
Kasia,

Since i am confused with the word usage of " Few if any ....", i didnt select C. Is this meaning none or less?
Kasia@MasterGMAT wrote:Television service providers with high definition technology broadcast special stations that only televisions with high definition capabilities can receive.(premise 1) Between 2006 and 2009, the number of television service providers with high definition technology in Zorskan increased from ten to seventeen.(premise 2) However, since the number of high definition televisions in Zorskan was approximately the same in 2009 as in 2006, the number of Zorskans able to access the stations probably did not increase significantly. (CONCLUSION)

A - refers to ALL tv stations so it is IRRELEVANT
B - what happened in neighboring countries is of NO INTEREST
D - this statement does not influence the argument in any way
E - this answer neither strengthens nor weakens the argument
C - correct, if this statement were not true, it could mean that the number of Zorskans able to access the stations increased significantly
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:03 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by jayoptimist » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:12 pm
This is an assumption question
'However, since the number of high definition televisions in Zorskan was approximately the same in 2009 as in 2006, the number of Zorskans able to access the stations probably did not increase significantly.

What could be the assumption here?

(C) Few if any of the high definition service providers that began operating after 2006 provided service to areas of Zorskan not previously served by high definition providers.

If this were not the assumption or in other words if HD service providers had indeed provided service
to other areas which were not previously serviced, then the no of zorskans able to access HD service would have increased.
Hence C
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

by karthikpandian19 » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:21 pm
OA is C



There are high definition providers and high definition receivers (televisions.) This argument says that although high definition providers increased in an area, there was no increase in people able to access high definition, because the number of high definition receivers did not increase. We are looking for an assumption, which often means that we must find a possible flaw in this reasoning, and then point out that the argument assumes that this flaw does not, in fact, exist.

Choice A: This answer choice refers to the wrong group in the argument. "Television service providers that began operating in Zorskan after 2006" does not necessarily refer to high-definition providers. People with non-high definition televisions may not have access to new stations from non-high definition providers, as this choice states, and this fact would have no bearing whatsoever on the argument at hand.

Choice B: This choice introduces an irrelevant comparison. The conclusion of this argument is limited only to Zorskans, so the high definition capabilities of neighboring counties is irrelevant to the conclusion.

Choice C is correct. If there were people with high definition televisions who gained access to high definition providers only after 2006 (but who could have already had televisions with high definition capabilities prior to that date), the argument would be invalid, so it must be assumed that this is not true. This choice negates a weakener to the argument, and is thus a necessary assumption.

Choice D: There is nothing in the argument saying that any of the providers mentioned in the argument were "equipped with high definition technology" after they already existed. Also, it is not necessarily important that more televisions get access to service, only that more televisions with high definition capabilities get access to service.

Choice E: This choice does not affect our outcome. This choice states that most Zorskans within range of a high definition provider already had a high definition television. The argument does not have to assume this to draw its conclusion; if very few Zorskans within range of service had high-definition televisions, the argument's conclusion (that there was not much increase in high-definition access) would not be affected.

Choice C is correct.
karthikpandian19 wrote:Television service providers with high definition technology broadcast special stations that only televisions with high definition capabilities can receive. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of television service providers with high definition technology in Zorskan increased from ten to seventeen. However, since the number of high definition televisions in Zorskan was approximately the same in 2009 as in 2006, the number of Zorskans able to access the stations probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


(A) In 2009 Zorskans who did not own high definition televisions could not view any stations from television service providers that began operating in Zorskan after 2006.

(B) Although there was no significant increase in the number of televisions with high definition receiving capabilities in Zorskan between 2006 and 2009, this was not true of neighboring counties.

(C) Few if any of the high definition service providers that began operating after 2006 provided service to areas of Zorskan not previously served by high definition providers.

(D) Equipping an already existing television service provider with high definition technology does not increase the number of televisions with access to that provider's services.

(E) In 2009 most Zorskans who resided within the service area of a high definition provider already had a high definition television.


I am kind of lost in the reasoning here
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1