I think the question is asking which is NOT an assumption. In that case i find both C & E are not assumptions. Any explanations given

IMO C
Conclusion : If someone is not naturally gifted ,one should not undertake creative pursuit.
Question is ALL ARE Assumptions EXCEPT:

A. professionals who spend a great deal of time practicing their creative pursuit will not earn much money. ("In order to have time to be materially successful in one's professional life one must not undertake a creative pursuit")
B. only people who are naturally creatively gifted can succeed both creatively and professionally. (argument still supports)
C. a person cannot succeed professionally and succeed creatively at the same time. (Too extreme and If Negation test is carried out : a person CAN succeed professionally and succeed creatively at the same time--> opposite to what author intends)
D. time spent practicing a creative endeavor curtails one's ability to spend time pursuing professional success.(If someone is indulge in something, one cannot use the same time for doing some else)
E. one should not pursue a creative field unless one intends to excel in it. (author supports this)

E. one should not pursue a creative field unless one intends to excel in it. (author supports this)

I think E is wrong because conclusion is not dependent on the E. Can you please point out how arg, support it.

vikram4689 wrote:

E. one should not pursue a creative field unless one intends to excel in it. (author supports this)

I think E is wrong because conclusion is not dependent on the E. Can you please point out how arg, support it.

The argument says :
artists and musicians excel in their chosen field of endeavor ONLY IF they are naturally gifted

If you take the double negatives off from option E it says :
"one should pursue a creative field IF one intends to excel in it."

If Artist and musicians do not intend to excel in it , why would they choose creative field? It would be aimless to pursue any field without an intention to grow/excel in it-Close to what option E says.

Since this is a Grockit question, I'm compelled to respond

CONCLUSION: naturally gifted = $$$
EVIDENCE: "Excel" = naturally gifted or diligent
ASSUMPTIONS: Diligent does not = $$$ (possible to "excel" but not make $$$)

C is correct. Think of "professionally" like making $$$, and "creatively" like being diligent and "excelling".

But the stimulus nowhere discusses moral obligation regarding what a person should or shouldnt do
one should not pursue a creative field unless one intends to excel in it.
i feel both C and E are valid answers

VivianKerr wrote:Since this is a Grockit question, I'm compelled to respond

CONCLUSION: naturally gifted = $$$
EVIDENCE: "Excel" = naturally gifted or diligent
ASSUMPTIONS: Diligent does not = $$$ (possible to "excel" but not make $$$)

C is correct. Think of "professionally" like making $$$, and "creatively" like being diligent and "excelling".

Vivian,

Doesn't C actually provide an assumption.If we negate it..

C. a person CAN succeed professionally and succeed creatively at the same time.

Which means that a person can make money and be creative at the same time.This destroys the argument.Hence it's a presupposition or assumption.We are asked to look for the one which is not an assumption.

I chose E. Please elaborate.

I had it down between C and E.

C seems to be the *obvious* correct answer --> The argument clearly does not assume that one CANNOT be both creative and wealthy. In fact the argument states that in order for a person to make "$$$" -- he should be talented (if he is not talented -- then he will spend a lot time practicing, and as a result will not have enough time to make money). But the argument does not imply that someone cannot be both creative and successful.

Choice E -- gets a bit tricky here. I think the statement itself is very extreme. The author does not imply that "One SHOULD not pursue a creative field" -- The author only states that in order for someone to excel in his/her chosen field, he/she should be talented or hardworking. And further -- if he/she wants to make $$$ -- then he/she better be naturally gifted. I don't see choice E *clearly* supported in the argument. Choice E is *irrelevant* to the argument -- the author is not taking a stance on who should or shouldn't pursue a creative field.

For example:

Only sprinters who are over 6 feet tall or who workout for more than 30 hours a week are likely to run fast. Furthermore, only sprinters who are over 6 feet tall can win Olympic medals because their natural physique allows them to train less and thus spend more time in competitions.


The stimulus I made up is somewhat similar to the question. This stimulus does not *assume* that ---> one SHOULD not become a sprinter unless one wishes to win Olympic medals.

In my opinion Choice E needs to be re-written. Perhaps -- "One should not pursue a creative field expecting to make money unless one is naturally talented".