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

Redeem

Trainers

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

Trainers

by goelmohit2002 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:07 am
Hi All,

[spoiler]In the below question OA = B. Can someone please tell why not C?[/spoiler]

The Mayor of Newtown: Many dog owners believe that they themselves can train their unruly dogs to develop good, companionable behavior, when in fact many dogs can only be made well-behaved through professional training. In order to protect public safety, either license requirements for dog owners should be raised to a level comparable to that for a driver's license or dog ownership should be banned in Newtown.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the conclusion above?
a) The number of dog owners in Newtown who used professional trainers
b) The number of injuries caused by dogs in Newtown in the past
c) The standard required for residents to get drivers' licenses in Newtown
d) The proportion of Newtown residents who own dogs
e) The cost of having a dog trained professionally in Newtown
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:29 am
The conclusion is:
In order to ensure safety, it should do X or Y.

Now, how to achieve X or Y is immaterial. Now to evaluate the conclusion, it is first necessary to see weather X or Y are actually required or not before delving into details like how X or Y will be achieved.

In this case, if there are no injuries done by the dogs in the past, X is irrevelant and this makes the argument invalid.

I agree, C is close too ... infact I had choosen this option when I first encountered this CR :( .... But presence of B makes C the second best option.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:36 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:The conclusion is:
In order to ensure safety, it should do X or Y.

Now, how to achieve X or Y is immaterial. Now to evaluate the conclusion, it is first necessary to see weather X or Y are actually required or not before delving into details like how X or Y will be achieved.

In this case, if there are no injuries done by the dogs in the past, X is irrevelant and this makes the argument invalid.

I agree, C is close too ... infact I had choosen this option when I first encountered this CR :( .... But presence of B makes C the second best option.
Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:52 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:
madhur_ahuja wrote:The conclusion is:
In order to ensure safety, it should do X or Y.

Now, how to achieve X or Y is immaterial. Now to evaluate the conclusion, it is first necessary to see weather X or Y are actually required or not before delving into details like how X or Y will be achieved.

In this case, if there are no injuries done by the dogs in the past, X is irrevelant and this makes the argument invalid.

I agree, C is close too ... infact I had choosen this option when I first encountered this CR :( .... But presence of B makes C the second best option.
Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit
I don't know what the standards here refer to. Is it the technical standards or the quality bar as you have mentioned.

Also, What the driver license has to do with dogs ? :)

Above is not answer to your question, but just my personal observation.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:56 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:
madhur_ahuja wrote:
Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit
Mohit,

I agree its difficult to evaluate what acceptable number of injuries is but B is the best choice...sometimes the right answer is not necessarily perfect but is simply the best out of the bunch.

C appears to be incorrect because you have to first decide if there really is problem before you start to find a solution such as the one in C.

Hope that helps.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:34 am
life is a test wrote:
goelmohit2002 wrote:
madhur_ahuja wrote:
Hi Madhur,

Thanks. But what is the problem in this reasoning that if the standards of license are pretty tough, then the same will happen with dog license too and the safety will be ensured....

Moreover in B in one case i.e. 0 injuries, yes it is good answer....but what if injuries are >= 1 ? Then how will B be better then C ?

Thanks
Mohit
Mohit,

I agree its difficult to evaluate what acceptable number of injuries is but B is the best choice...sometimes the right answer is not necessarily perfect but is simply the best out of the bunch.

C appears to be incorrect because you have to first decide if there really is problem before you start to find a solution such as the one in C.

Hope that helps.
Thanks !!!

But wouldn't B be better worded like
"whether there were any injuries by dogs" ?
OR
"what is the level of acceptable injuries by dogs in the city"

or B say the same thing ?

Please tell....

Thanks
Mohit
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:53 am
had fallen for C too :( but B does seem better as explained by others.

conclusion: to protect public safety, either ban dog keeping or raise the standards.

B: injuries caused by dogs in the past-
depending on the number of injuries in the past, it has great impact on the conclusion
if the # is huge=> conclusion is valid
if the # is negligible/low=>conclusion invalid. neither of the steps may be taken.

C. standard required for driving license-
does not have any impact on the conclusion. as the whole purpose is to protect public from the injuries caused by dogs. whatever be the required standards for license, either of the options may be exercised or neither may be needed depending on the scale of injuries caused by dog bites
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:29 am
scoobydooby wrote:had fallen for C too :( but B does seem better as explained by others.

conclusion: to protect public safety, either ban dog keeping or raise the standards.

B: injuries caused by dogs in the past-
depending on the number of injuries in the past, it has great impact on the conclusion
if the # is huge=> conclusion is valid
if the # is negligible/low=>conclusion invalid. neither of the steps may be taken.

C. standard required for driving license-
does not have any impact on the conclusion. as the whole purpose is to protect public from the injuries caused by dogs. whatever be the required standards for license, either of the options may be exercised or neither may be needed depending on the scale of injuries caused by dog bites
Hi Scooby,

IMO B can tilt any side.....i.e. it can say
#1) injuries are acceptable.....
#2) injuries are not acceptable.

If answer is #1, surely B looks best but what if answer is #2.....i.e. injuries come out to be unacceptable....i.e. problem really exists...then can you please help me understand how B is the best ? Then in that case why not C is the best ? If problem exists, then shouldn't we see the benchmark of safety....whether the benchmark good enough (whatever the benchmark judge created) in order to protect public from dog bites ?

Basically why are we assuming that problem does not exist....why are we not assuming that problem exist and we need to take some action and we need to validate the effectiveness of that action ?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:31 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by gmatv09 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:22 am
agree with madhur_ahuja
IMO B is the best choice
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:44 pm
Location: Canada

by Kebab » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:30 am
scoobydooby wrote: C. standard required for driving license-
does not have any impact on the conclusion. as the whole purpose is to protect public from the injuries caused by dogs. whatever be the required standards for license, either of the options may be exercised or neither may be needed depending on the scale of injuries caused by dog bites
i believe, the above answer is true.

I was studying CR with MGMAT CR book. According to this book, the correct answer choice for strengthen the argument question will typically function as a new premise. (true for B and C). But then it mentions: A correct answer might provide an explanation of or support for a keyword in the conclusion. (with deeper examination, this one is true only for B).

Driver's licence standards provide additional information IN conclusion. If we will consider these standards as a premise, that would be irrelevant for conclusion (implementation of the standards is important, not the way of implementation). C provides additional information for the conclusion but does not support it.
On the other hand, B is an additional information which is also supports conclusion => makes it stronger while not changing it.

correct me if my logic is wrong...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:38 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Trainers

by quant-master » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:46 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:Hi All,

[spoiler]In the below question OA = B. Can someone please tell why not C?[/spoiler]

The Mayor of Newtown: Many dog owners believe that they themselves can train their unruly dogs to develop good, companionable behavior, when in fact many dogs can only be made well-behaved through professional training. In order to protect public safety, either license requirements for dog owners should be raised to a level comparable to that for a driver's license or dog ownership should be banned in Newtown.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the conclusion above?
a) The number of dog owners in Newtown who used professional trainers
b) The number of injuries caused by dogs in Newtown in the past
c) The standard required for residents to get drivers' licenses in Newtown
d) The proportion of Newtown residents who own dogs
e) The cost of having a dog trained professionally in Newtown
IMO B

As everybody agrees the fight is between B and C. Let me try to explain why C is not the best one.

The conclusion is
In order to protect public safety, either license requirements for dog owners should be raised to a level comparable to that for a driver's license or dog ownership should be banned in Newtown.
We can see that we have two conclusions, One is issuing license and the other is banning ownership. 2nd conclusion has nothing to do with option C but before banning ownership Mayor will definitely look into number of injuries caused.

Also conclusion to issue license is drawn to reduce the injury to the people. Hence before issuing a license a thing required to analyse is "whether license is necessary?" if yes than why? and the answer will be because of injury to the general public.

Hence B

Thanks,
Quant-Master
https://gmat-quants.blocked - My Blog Updated almost daily with new quant fundas. Find collection of quants question in my blog
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

Re: Trainers

by goelmohit2002 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:32 am
quant-master wrote: Also conclusion to issue license is drawn to reduce the injury to the people. Hence before issuing a license a thing required to analyse is "whether license is necessary?" if yes than why? and the answer will be because of injury to the general public.
Hi QM,

Can you please tell why in the above case i.e. YES.... B is best....why will Prime Minister :-) say will not ask Mayor....you are recommending upgradation of dog licensing to General licensing....."have you made sure that those standards are good enough for dog licensing ?"

Thanks
Mohit
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:38 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Trainers

by quant-master » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:43 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:
quant-master wrote: Also conclusion to issue license is drawn to reduce the injury to the people. Hence before issuing a license a thing required to analyse is "whether license is necessary?" if yes than why? and the answer will be because of injury to the general public.
Hi QM,

Can you please tell why in the above case i.e. YES.... B is best....why will Prime Minister :-) say will not ask Mayor....you are recommending upgradation of dog licensing to General licensing....."have you made sure that those standards are good enough for dog licensing ?"

Thanks
Mohit
The primary purpose here is to stop injuries caused by dog. If prime minister asks Mayor (which is out of scope of this question) than his question will be "have you made sure whether this will reduce injury" If the number of injury caused is not known than he can not answer to this.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Quant-Master
https://gmat-quants.blocked - My Blog Updated almost daily with new quant fundas. Find collection of quants question in my blog
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:47 am
Thanks a lot QM.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:17 pm
Hi, goel - you asked me to address this one before QM's response. Are you okay with this one now or do you still want me to address it?

Also, someone above mentioned Strengthen questions when discussing this one. This is not a strengthen question - this is an Evaluate the Conclusion question. You can find those discussed in the Minor Types chapter of your MGMAT CR guide.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Post new topic Post Reply