Good point, Mundasingh - the addition of gold is new information, but the assumption really isn't because the assumption basically exists to say that we won't add that new information. The assumption is required because, without it, we can bring in that new information to void the argument.
I'm going to totally rip this off from David@VeritasPrep, but I love his analogy. The correct answer in an Assumption question isn't a sword - it's not a piece of offense that furthers your case - but rather a shield. It protects your argument from attack. That's why I love treating Assumption questions as Weaken questions - it makes me think about how my argument is vulnerable to attack. In this case, if I were Frobisher trying to attack the argument that my methods were weak, I'd try to claim that some crazy event happened to tamper with my results. So if I'm defending - shielding - the argument, I want to protect it from that attack by saying "Gold WAS NOT added to the sample". If I do that, then he can't use that defense.
So in summary...in an Assumption question the correct answer isn't likely to be brand-new information, but it should protect the argument from someone bringing in new information.
_________________________________________________
@Aspirant - I'm glad this helped for Assumptions. For Strengthen/Weaken questions the best quick advice I can give you (or anyone) is to:
1) Pay particular attention to the conclusion. Above you should notice that I used all CAPS for "THE METHODS" - I thought that was the crux of the conclusion. The conclusion wasn't that the survey RESULTS were wrong - they clearly were since they showed gold where there was none - but that THE METHODS were wrong. The particular degree of the conclusion is really important - the GMAT is great at getting you to infer a conclusion that's just slightly different in scope from what they're really saying.
2) Read critically. Especially with weaken questions, you should see those flaws in the argument pretty quickly - you will never see a Strengthen/Weaken question with an airtight argument! So if you can recognize that gap between the facts and the conclusion, you can already have a good idea of what's missing when you get to the answer choices.
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil
-
Brian@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
- Location: Malibu, CA
- Thanked: 716 times
- Followed by:255 members
- GMAT Score:750
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
-
aspirant2011
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
- Thanked: 88 times
- Followed by:13 members
thanks BrianBrian@VeritasPrep wrote:Good point, Mundasingh - the addition of gold is new information, but the assumption really isn't because the assumption basically exists to say that we won't add that new information. The assumption is required because, without it, we can bring in that new information to void the argument.
I'm going to totally rip this off from David@VeritasPrep, but I love his analogy. The correct answer in an Assumption question isn't a sword - it's not a piece of offense that furthers your case - but rather a shield. It protects your argument from attack. That's why I love treating Assumption questions as Weaken questions - it makes me think about how my argument is vulnerable to attack. In this case, if I were Frobisher trying to attack the argument that my methods were weak, I'd try to claim that some crazy event happened to tamper with my results. So if I'm defending - shielding - the argument, I want to protect it from that attack by saying "Gold WAS NOT added to the sample". If I do that, then he can't use that defense.
So in summary...in an Assumption question the correct answer isn't likely to be brand-new information, but it should protect the argument from someone bringing in new information.
_________________________________________________
@Aspirant - I'm glad this helped for Assumptions. For Strengthen/Weaken questions the best quick advice I can give you (or anyone) is to:
1) Pay particular attention to the conclusion. Above you should notice that I used all CAPS for "THE METHODS" - I thought that was the crux of the conclusion. The conclusion wasn't that the survey RESULTS were wrong - they clearly were since they showed gold where there was none - but that THE METHODS were wrong. The particular degree of the conclusion is really important - the GMAT is great at getting you to infer a conclusion that's just slightly different in scope from what they're really saying.
2) Read critically. Especially with weaken questions, you should see those flaws in the argument pretty quickly - you will never see a Strengthen/Weaken question with an airtight argument! So if you can recognize that gap between the facts and the conclusion, you can already have a good idea of what's missing when you get to the answer choices.
...........your post was really helpful........-
richachampion
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
- Location: Noida, India
- Thanked: 32 times
- Followed by:26 members
- GMAT Score:740
I have something to add here.
High Gold Content was found in the soil sample during Frobisher's days, but the Modern analysis of the island's soil indicates a very low gold content.
So Our Pre Assumptions -
1. We assume that island's soils compositions almost remained Unchanged in these years.
2. Composition of the soil now and then was same.
If any one of the above or both are true then we can conclude that old methods were inaccurate.
Option E is actually what we Presumed. Option E states that Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
Does this all make sense?
High Gold Content was found in the soil sample during Frobisher's days, but the Modern analysis of the island's soil indicates a very low gold content.
So Our Pre Assumptions -
1. We assume that island's soils compositions almost remained Unchanged in these years.
2. Composition of the soil now and then was same.
If any one of the above or both are true then we can conclude that old methods were inaccurate.
Option E is actually what we Presumed. Option E states that Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.
Does this all make sense?
what is wrong with option (C)?Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Good point, Mundasingh - the addition of gold is new information, but the assumption really isn't because the assumption basically exists to say that we won't add that new information. The assumption is required because, without it, we can bring in that new information to void the argument.
I'm going to totally rip this off from David@VeritasPrep, but I love his analogy. The correct answer in an Assumption question isn't a sword - it's not a piece of offense that furthers your case - but rather a shield. It protects your argument from attack. That's why I love treating Assumption questions as Weaken questions - it makes me think about how my argument is vulnerable to attack. In this case, if I were Frobisher trying to attack the argument that my methods were weak, I'd try to claim that some crazy event happened to tamper with my results. So if I'm defending - shielding - the argument, I want to protect it from that attack by saying "Gold WAS NOT added to the sample". If I do that, then he can't use that defense.
So in summary...in an Assumption question the correct answer isn't likely to be brand-new information, but it should protect the argument from someone bringing in new information.
_________________________________________________
@Aspirant - I'm glad this helped for Assumptions. For Strengthen/Weaken questions the best quick advice I can give you (or anyone) is to:
1) Pay particular attention to the conclusion. Above you should notice that I used all CAPS for "THE METHODS" - I thought that was the crux of the conclusion. The conclusion wasn't that the survey RESULTS were wrong - they clearly were since they showed gold where there was none - but that THE METHODS were wrong. The particular degree of the conclusion is really important - the GMAT is great at getting you to infer a conclusion that's just slightly different in scope from what they're really saying.
2) Read critically. Especially with weaken questions, you should see those flaws in the argument pretty quickly - you will never see a Strengthen/Weaken question with an airtight argument! So if you can recognize that gap between the facts and the conclusion, you can already have a good idea of what's missing when you get to the answer choices.
