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

Redeem

Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced c

Expert replies
by BTGmoderatorDC » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:13 am
Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

A. Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
B. Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
C. There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
D. Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
E. Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

What is wrong with Option D?

OA C
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Vincen » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:42 am
I think option B can be correct.

Experts, may you clarify us this CR question?
Join the discussion

by EconomistGMATTutor » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:59 am
The conclusion: The gambling experts' contention -- with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time -- cannot be evaluated
The evidence: Losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

The question asks you to weaken the conclusion. Choice C states that there is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology and gambling success. The more sophisticated the tech, the greater the success. This does indicate that if the tech was sufficiently advanced, the outcome would be successful (nearly) every time. This would weaken the conclusion.

Choice B and D were asked about.

Choice B implies that the tech is not sophisticated enough, but the argument is about what WILL happen when it is. This statement does not weaken the argument, which is about the future.

Choice D mentions, somewhat vaguely, "rare configurations of computer data" that can make precise gambling predictions. Are these configurations dependent on sophisticated technology? Will they be less rare in the future? Remember, the conclusion mentions winning "almost every time." It's unclear how this statement affects the conclusion.

I'm available for further questions.
GMAT Prep From The Economist
We offer 70+ point score improvement money back guarantee.
Our average student improves 98 points.

Image
Join the discussion