Phoenix7 wrote:But, the argument doesn't fall apart entirely by negating option A because it also depends on the feedback of the other group of volunteers - "But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair". Can you please help me to resolve this paradox?

The conclusion is about people applying weaker standards to THEMSELVES.
The volunteers in red judged NOT themselves but the people in the experiment.
Thus, the conclusion is not about these volunteers.

Also, consider option C. If you negate it, you get "There were NO volunteers who were assigned to do the hard task and felt that the assignment was unfair". This seems to completely negate the argument because if the people who got the short end of the stick, so to speak, are not complaining then what is the basis for claiming that the actions of the people who chose the easy tasks for themselves were unfair? So to me it seems that C is the better option, though A is the OA apparently. I would really appreciate your analysis and insight on these points.

C, negated:
There were no volunteers assigned to do the easy task.
This negation refutes the PREMISE that each volunteer was ALLOWED TO CHOOSE between an easy task and a hard task.
A premise is a FACT; it cannot be refuted.
If the negation of an answer choice refutes a premise, the answer choice is WRONG.
Eliminate C.

ceilidh.erickson wrote:In this next example, I would argue that the right answer isn't really "new" information, it's a reinterpretation / clarification of the information given:

OG 13/2015 #77:

Argument: A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

Assumption: Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

@ceilidh - GREAT explanations.
I can understand ALL, but just a quick clarification required on this aspect -

I guess, though we may interpret this in such way, still the OA of this CR appears to me as a NEW INFORMATION itself rather than a reinterpretation of the passage!

Because from the passage, we don't get any such INFORMATION that the CONVICTED DRIVERS are more likely to speed regularly than are the DRIVERS who are NOT CONVICTED for speed driving -- there is a GAP in the ARGUMENT and the OA as an ASSUMPTION simply fills that in, I think...

So, don't really get how the OA here doesn't represent a NEW INFORMATION itself ?

Curious to hear from you!

ceilidh.erickson wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:In GMAT CR the BOTTOM-LINE is:

1. For ASSUMPTION CR - the OA is a MUST BE TRUE STATEMENT, which has to be also a NEW INFORMATION at the same time.

I think that you have a good general understanding of the idea, but just to be semantically precise...

An ASSUMPTION does not have to be NEW information. The right answer can contain new information, but usually only if it's RULING OUT alternative possibilities. Consider:

OG 2016 #40:

Argument: If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

Assumption: The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

Dumping trash in the park is new info, and the right answer specifies that it will NOT happen.

In this next example, I would argue that the right answer isn't really "new" information, it's a reinterpretation / clarification of the information given:

OG 13/2015 #77:

Argument: A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

Assumption: Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

Here, the argument hinges on the specification of the word "regularly."

For your second point,

2. For STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN CR - the OA is just a NEW INFORMATION only. But NOT necessarily, a FACT or PREMISE.

I would reword this to say:

2. For STRENGTHEN CR - the OA is just NEW INFORMATION that makes the link between premise and conclusion (and the the argument as a whole) MORE LIKELY to be true... but it is NOT something that MUST be true for the argument to be valid.
For WEAKEN CR - the OA is NEW INFORMATION that makes the link between premise and conclusion (and the the argument as a whole) LESS LIKELY to be true.... but it is NOT something that DISPROVES the argument.

Fantastic ceilidh.erickson. Kudos!!

I think this question also deserves attention on Option D.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Phoenix7 wrote:But, the argument doesn't fall apart entirely by negating option A because it also depends on the feedback of the other group of volunteers - "But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair". Can you please help me to resolve this paradox?

The conclusion is about people applying weaker standards to THEMSELVES.
The volunteers in red judged NOT themselves but the people in the experiment.
Thus, the conclusion is not about these volunteers.

Also, consider option C. If you negate it, you get "There were NO volunteers who were assigned to do the hard task and felt that the assignment was unfair". This seems to completely negate the argument because if the people who got the short end of the stick, so to speak, are not complaining then what is the basis for claiming that the actions of the people who chose the easy tasks for themselves were unfair? So to me it seems that C is the better option, though A is the OA apparently. I would really appreciate your analysis and insight on these points.

C, negated:
There were no volunteers assigned to do the easy task.
This negation refutes the PREMISE that each volunteer was ALLOWED TO CHOOSE between an easy task and a hard task.
A premise is a FACT; it cannot be refuted.
If the negation of an answer choice refutes a premise, the answer choice is WRONG.
Eliminate C.

Thank you so much Mr. Hunt you are always amazing and helpful.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

ceilidh.erickson wrote:In this next example, I would argue that the right answer isn't really "new" information, it's a reinterpretation / clarification of the information given:

OG 13/2015 #77:

Argument: A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

Assumption: Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

@ceilidh - GREAT explanations.
I can understand ALL, but just a quick clarification required on this aspect -

I guess, though we may interpret this in such way, still the OA of this CR appears to me as a NEW INFORMATION itself rather than a reinterpretation of the passage!

Because from the passage, we don't get any such INFORMATION that the CONVICTED DRIVERS are more likely to speed regularly than are the DRIVERS who are NOT CONVICTED for speed driving -- there is a GAP in the ARGUMENT and the OA as an ASSUMPTION simply fills that in, I think...

So, don't really get how the OA here doesn't represent a NEW INFORMATION itself ?

Curious to hear from you!

Let's be specific about what "new information" is.

New information comes from statements of fact.

If we are talking about growing grapes, and someone says, "To keep grapes from being eaten before harvest, one can have dogs chase the birds that eat grapes," what that person has said provides new information.

If, however, we consider what the person has said and decide that the person's plan will work only if the dogs themselves will not eat grapes, we have not gained new information. We have just interpreted the information that we already have.

Similarly, in the example that Ceilidh gave, while the prompt does not mention the idea that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed, the answer choice does not provide this information either.

Notice, the answer choice does not state as fact that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

The answer choice simply says that GIVEN WHAT THE ARGUMENT SAYS, the argument requires the assumption that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.[

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Neilsheth2 wrote:In an experiment, each volunteer was allowed to choose between an easy task and a hard task and was told that another volunteer would do the other task. Each volunteer could also choose to have a computer assign the two tasks randomly. Most volunteers chose the easy task for themselves and under questioning later said they had acted fairly. But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair. This shows that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.

Which of the following is an assumption required by this argument?

(A) At least some volunteers who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.
(B) The most moral choice for the volunteers would have been to have the computer assign the two tasks randomly.
(C) There were at least some volunteers who were assigned to do the hard task and felt that the assignment was unfair.
(D) On average, the volunteers to whom the scenario was described were more accurate in their moral judgments than the other volunteers were.
(E) At least some volunteers given the choice between assigning the tasks themselves and having the computer assign them felt that they had made the only fair choice available to them.

Premise:
Most volunteers said they had acted fairly, but when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair.
Conclusion:
Most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.

An assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.
Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer choice is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.

A, negated:
NONE of the volunteers who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.
Here, all the volunteers who said they had acted fairly would also consider it fair for SOMEONE ELSE to choose the easy task, invalidating the conclusion that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.
Since the negation of A invalidates the conclusion, A is the correct assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is A.

Dear Mitch,
I am having a hard time understanding the question ....leave alone the answers.
Would really appreciate if you help me out!!

My understanding ,
Lets say in group G1 there are 50 people
When asked to choose a task 40(lets say) chose the easy task and said they acted fairly.

This scenario was described to another group lets say G2,
Here around 45 people said what people of G1 did was unfair on their part.

Based on this info the argument concludes that people apply lesser moral standards to themselves than to others.

If my analysis is right, how is option A invalidating the conclusion.
Negation of option A says:NONE of the volunteers who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.

Agreed they (people who opted the easy task) might agree that choosing the easy task was fair on their part(using my common sense here).

But How did you infer this from the passage.
To elaborate it ,
If me and you were a part of the group G1 and we both chose easy part.
From the text in the argument how did you conclude that I would suppose what you did is fair?

Sorry if I am asking you a dumb question but in every book of CR that I read told me not to use my common sense instead analyse according to the given text.

Hope I made my argument clear

Regrds
Teja

Marty Murray wrote: Similarly, in the example that Ceilidh gave, while the prompt does not mention the idea that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed, the answer choice does not provide this information either.

Notice, the answer choice does not state as fact that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

The answer choice simply says that GIVEN WHAT THE ARGUMENT SAYS, the argument requires the assumption that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

@ Marty,
It's really hard time...I don't really get this logic because here the OA itself states that "Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed" -- so how it could NOT be a NEW INFORMATION provided by the OA, especially when we don't get any such INFORMATION from the ARGUMENT/PASSAGE ?

Completely lost...

P.S: Moreover, the RED part in your above quote -- how we can conclude that ?

Mitch,

I got this question , I misinterpreted one of your writing in previous post.

Dear All,

Would someone please tell me the steps to delete a quote.

Regards
Teja

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

Marty Murray wrote: Similarly, in the example that Ceilidh gave, while the prompt does not mention the idea that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed, the answer choice does not provide this information either.

Notice, the answer choice does not state as fact that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

The answer choice simply says that GIVEN WHAT THE ARGUMENT SAYS, the argument requires the assumption that drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.

@ Marty,
It's really hard time...I don't really get this logic because here the OA itself states that "Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed" -- so how it could NOT be a NEW INFORMATION provided by the OA, especially when we don't get any such INFORMATION from the ARGUMENT/PASSAGE ?

Completely lost...

P.S: Moreover, the RED part in your above quote -- how we can conclude that ?

That OA does not state anything.

The question is, What assumption does the argument depend on?

The answer choices are all merely assumptions that the argument may depend on, therefore, not facts.

Look at Ceilidh's example about the walnut cake.

ceilidh.erickson wrote:Argument: The server did not warn Caitlin that there are walnuts in the cake. Therefore, she'll go into anaphylaxis and have to go to the hospital.

Necessary assumption #1: Caitlin will eat the cake.
If she doesn't eat the cake, the conclusion falls apart.

In that example Caitlin will eat the cake. is not a statement of fact. In reality, Caitlin may not eat the cake.

Caitlin will eat the cake. is merely an assumption that the argument depends on, and it may not be a true statement. That what's said in the answer choices MAY NOT BE TRUE is the ENTIRE POINT of assumption questions. The arguments may not work, because what's stated in the answer choices may not be the case.

So in the speeding example, Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. is not new information, because it is NOT A FACT. It states something that may or may not be true.

Marty Murray wrote: So in the speeding example, Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. is not new information, because it is NOT A FACT. It states something that may or may not be true.

Marty - an ASSUMPTION is always a MUST BE TRUE statement, I think.

If yes, then don't really understand the RED part in your above quote ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

Marty Murray wrote: So in the speeding example, Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. is not new information, because it is NOT A FACT. It states something that may or may not be true.

Marty - an ASSUMPTION is always a MUST BE TRUE statement, I think.

If yes, then don't really understand the RED part in your above quote ?

Correct! This is what Mr. Murray is saying.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

Marty Murray wrote: So in the speeding example, Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. is not new information, because it is NOT A FACT. It states something that may or may not be true.

Marty - an ASSUMPTION is always a MUST BE TRUE statement, I think.

If yes, then don't really understand the RED part in your above quote ?

NO. The assumptions in the answer choices to an assumption question do not have to be true.

In order for the argument to work, of them has to be true, yes, but they may not be true, and the argument may not work.

RBBmba@2014, to really get a handle on GMAT CR, you have to take your thinking to another level, and this discussion shows that you are being something along the lines of too formulaic in your thinking and not sufficiently logic based.

You took the idea that one of the answer choices to an assumption question has to be true in order for an argument to work and turned it into simply "The answer choice must be true." Then you stuck with that view even though I clearly explained why it's not correct.

There is not out there any rule or GMAT CR gimmick that explains why what I am saying is correct. So you have to look over the situation and figure out why it is, and generally, while the care you are putting into your preparation is awesome, and the depth you take these discussions to is bound to be productive, I think that to get to a point such that you are really rocking GMAT CR you have to think differently in general.

In other words, through engaging in this discussion you have gained some key insight into what, in order to attain your aim, you have to do, which seems to be something along the lines of adjusting your approach to make it based less on seeing trigger words and using formulaic approaches and more on seeking to clearly see the overall logic of the arguments and other parts of GMAT verbal questions.

I have to say that having discussed this topic with you, I see how these things work more clearly than I ever before have. Your questions are interesting and the insights that come of these discussions are useful. At the same time, I do find that you will be more effective if you adjust your approach.

You won't really ever read enough explanations to verbal questions or learn enough "rules" to score high in verbal, because working that way is not really the path to a high verbal score. The path to a high verbal score is learning to use logic to figure out which answer is correct. One can score V51 without being aware of 1/10 of the GMAT verbal rules and other minutia that people talk about if one uses logic effectively.