IMO A
If you negate the option A i.e.
Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is "likely" to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

The author's argument falls apart because then Governor's plan will help in reducing crime rate.

You will get my point if you try to focus on author's conclusion and not governor's goal.

C is wrong because the author explicitly states the opposite of C in his last statement i.e. after being released, inmates who had take these courses were likely to commit fewer crimes as compared to the other inmates.
Therefore, C can not be an assumption made by the author.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

In C we have The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released but we dont know what happened after they took that course.
Only choice A gives teh result of this college course, so A is thebest choice

lunarpower wrote:

nikhilgirdhar wrote:IMO A
If you negate the option A i.e.
Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is "likely" to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

The author's argument falls apart because then Governor's plan will help in reducing crime rate.

You will get my point if you try to focus on author's conclusion and not governor's goal.

C is wrong because the author explicitly states the opposite of C in his last statement i.e. after being released, inmates who had take these courses were likely to commit fewer crimes as compared to the other inmates.
Therefore, C can not be an assumption made by the author.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

ok, i can see your point with (a) now. in fact, there are so many twists to the argument that i had become confused myself. heh.

i still maintain that (c) is ALSO a correct assumption. there's a very important word in there - ALREADY - which contributes to the meaning of this choice: namely, if those inmates were ALREADY less likely to commit crimes, then the college courses don't necessarily have any effect.
we need a causal link between college courses and lower probability of recidivism, as noted in my previous post, so this assumption is also necessary.

what's the source of this problem?

Hi Ron,

Thanks. Yes C looks best...

but A seems really confusing....

By above post do you mean to say that we should forget about this question

Does these type of confusing options also come in real test ?

Thanks
Mohit

Hi guys, nice to see y'all here.

I think Ron's logic is probably right; and I just wanna make one more point here.

As Ron is correct, then the argument is assuming that taking college level course does make difference of inmates' behaviors.

So what's wrong with A? in other words, A, is saying that being able to get access to take college level course is likely to deter anyone from a crime. Can we say rephrase A like this? Someone'd say yes.

I would say yes if A didn't put the word "anyone" in; it's obviously too absolute in GMAT; GMAT wouldn't put any absolute words in a correct answer.

C should be the answer.

does C mean

both groups were equally probable
OR

presence of already here does the trick ?

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

does C mean

both groups were equally probable
OR

presence of already here does the trick ?

C. The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.

Me too confused between A and C

A when negated destroys the argument!!

received a pm.

A when negated destroys the argument!!

Yes, it certainly does. Choice A is indeed a necessary assumption. Choice A reads:

A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

which, removing the double negatives "not" and "unlikely" can be read as:

"Being able to take college-level courses while in prison IS likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed."

which, if we negate, becomes:

"Being able to take college-level courses while in prison ISN'T likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed."

in which case the argument certainly falls apart.

___________

does C mean

both groups were equally probable
OR

presence of already here does the trick ?

Not sure I quite understand your question but Ron was bang on when he said that the word "already" in choice C also makes choice C a necessary assumption. "already" means before actually taking the courses.

Choice C when negated also destroys the assumption: If the group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses WERE already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released, then the argument falls apart for the reasons Ron discussed above.

There are two logically correct answer choices here, two necessary assumptions among the answer choices: choices A and C.

This is a bad question, and I wonder what the source is.

what a discussion!!!

Here's my take :

There is a main conclusion and a sub-conclusion here. I think they are :

Main conclusion :

this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal

Sub-conclusion :

since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

Now, the author is definitely assuming option C while concluding that a particular group committed fewer crime than rest of the inmates. Going by the negation test, the conclusion will fall apart if author doesn't assume option C.


Looking at our main conclusion, we find that option A is very important and a necessary assumption to conclude that governor's actions are counter to his goal. Apply the negation test, and you will get the same result.


Finally, the question asks us

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

So, I believe option A WILL be the correct choice. Also, I believe that this question is not wrong, but it tests our ability to filter the premises, sub-conclusion and the main conclusion.


I know I'm a human too, and to err is human. So, if anyone finds any mistake in the above explanation, please correct me. I'll be happy to take it as constructive criticism.

There is no subsidiary conclusion. What you are calling subsidiary conclusion is actually a piece of evidence. The question is faultily designed.

This:

this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal

is conclusion. While this:

since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.

is clearly a piece of evidence, and not a subsidiary conclusion.

Quote:
since after being released form prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.
is clearly a piece of evidence, and not a subsidiary conclusion.

Yes, it is an evidence/premise. And that's what sub-conclusions are for the main conclusion!

But, read the stimulus carefully, and you will find that the author says :

taking up courses - > committing fewer crimes. (taking up a course caused them to commit fewer crimes).

Now, to arrive at this conclusion (I will still say it a conclusion), he assumes that all the inmates, be it the select group or rest of the inmates, are equally likely to commit crime. (option C)

Once this is concluded/proved, he sites this conclusion as a piece of evidence to arrive at the main conclusion and simultaneously assumes that :

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.

which is option A.

makes sense!?

I have added to this post so much that I've decided to repost.

Yes, the rhetorical function of subsidiary conclusions is certainly that of evidence for the main conclusion. Other premises support the subsidiary conclusion, and the subsidiary conclusion, in turn, supports the main conclusion. I should have been more clear in my first post.

Here, what you are calling a subsidiary conclusion is actually just a fact--this is what I meant in my first post when I called it "a piece of evidence". The usage of "since" indicates that the author is summoning a real-world fact to support his argument. And, of course, real-world facts do not stand in need of support. Because a fact doesn't need support, it can't be a conclusion at all, subsidiary or otherwise.

In terms of strategy, if it were a subsidiary conclusion, then it wouldn't have the evidence keyword "since" sitting in front of it (and, here, it would have to have a conclusion keyword sitting in front of it even though not all sub conclusions need to be punctuated by a conclusion keyword).

Because there are two correct answers here, this is a bad question, and people shouldn't be studying it.
_________________