The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few year
Can someone please explain this
OA is C
Maybe 0.1 percent of test takers can reach this Answer in test. I know the answer and still i can not justify it ! Bah !
Television Assemblers - V. Tricky
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm
- Location: Indy
- Thanked: 3 times
mohit11 wrote:The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?!
We do not have that data to prove option A.A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
We are not talking about features here and hence B is out of scopeB. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
There is a drop in number of assemblers in Borodia while the number of televisions sets sold has remained the same. So in order for the conclusion to stay true the output from Borodia should be low. In other words the time taken for an assemler to assemble one Television should not have decreased. If you voided option C, meaning that the efficiency of the assembler has increased then, we cannot confidently state that the number of imports from Vernland has increased because Borodia can still assemble the same amount of Televisions with lesser workforce. Hence C is the necessary assumption needed to support the conclusion.C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
No proof.D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
We dont have data to prove.E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few year
Hopefully I cleared your ambiguity. Where did you get this question. Nice post BTW.
__________________________________
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
- mohit11
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:730
OG 112 -
Great reply. Thank you C does make more sense now.
One query, When you say no proof? . In assumption questions, we are supposed to take the answer choices to be true. I.e the stimulus is vulnerable. So D is a contender.. is it not?
Great reply. Thank you C does make more sense now.
One query, When you say no proof? . In assumption questions, we are supposed to take the answer choices to be true. I.e the stimulus is vulnerable. So D is a contender.. is it not?
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm
- Location: Indy
- Thanked: 3 times
Hi Mohit,
My approach to assumption questions- > you have to negate the options provided. The argument will fall apart if the correct assumption is negated.
Hope that helps.
My approach to assumption questions- > you have to negate the options provided. The argument will fall apart if the correct assumption is negated.
Hope that helps.
__________________________________
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
- mohit11
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:730
Oh yes, that's from the PR CR bible. I think i know the rules now, just need to work on the application better. Getting questions right during analysis or retries are no good. Need to get them right at the first go.
Can you ellaborate a little bit on your approach to CR questions.
I tend to/ or atleast try to attempt CR questions using the following approach.
Read the Stimulus - Ascertain the conclusion (most of the time this step happens on its own, during reading the question itself i am able to recognize the conclusion correctly)
Read the question step - Check which portion is vulnerable I.e the stimulus (in case of weaken/strengthen question) or Answer Choices (Assumption/Conclusion/Main point)
Ideally i should try and paraphrase the answer but somehow, i don't do it. Its a habit i am trying to develop.
Run through each Answer Choice, Marking them as contender/non contender.. then if i have more than 1 contenders, i go back and analyze.
What i've found is that in some HARD questions, i tend to mark out the contender as non contender. I guess i end up becoming a little careless. however sometimes i can't reach the answer even after know the correct answer...
Would love to hear your take on it.
Can you ellaborate a little bit on your approach to CR questions.
I tend to/ or atleast try to attempt CR questions using the following approach.
Read the Stimulus - Ascertain the conclusion (most of the time this step happens on its own, during reading the question itself i am able to recognize the conclusion correctly)
Read the question step - Check which portion is vulnerable I.e the stimulus (in case of weaken/strengthen question) or Answer Choices (Assumption/Conclusion/Main point)
Ideally i should try and paraphrase the answer but somehow, i don't do it. Its a habit i am trying to develop.
Run through each Answer Choice, Marking them as contender/non contender.. then if i have more than 1 contenders, i go back and analyze.
What i've found is that in some HARD questions, i tend to mark out the contender as non contender. I guess i end up becoming a little careless. however sometimes i can't reach the answer even after know the correct answer...
Would love to hear your take on it.
- komal
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Thanked: 117 times
- Followed by:47 members
Hi Mohit
I am a big fan of CR Bible and generally follow the bible's 9 Primary Objectives to attack any CR Question. I would like to share those 9 Primary Objectives here with u. Hope it helps u as much as it has helped me..... or more : )
Primary Objective # 1 : Determine whether the stimulus contains an argument or if it is only a set of factual statements.
Primary Objective # 2 : If the stimulus contains an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument. If the
stimulus contains a fact set, examine each fact.
Primary Objective # 3 : If the stimulus contains an argument, determine if the argument is strong or weak.
Primary Objective # 4 : Read closely and know precisely what the author said. Do not generalize !
Primary Objective # 5 : Carefully read and identify the question stem. Do not assume that certain words are
automatically associated with certain question types.
Primary Objective # 6 : Prephase : after reading the question stem, take a moment to mentally formulate your
answer to the question stem.
Primary Objective # 7 : Always read each of the five answer choices.
Primary Objective # 8 : Separate the answer choices into Contenders n Losers. After u complete this process,
review the contenders and decide which answer is the correct one.
Primary Objective # 9 : If all five answer choices appear to be losers, return to the stimulus and re-evaluate the
argument.
I am a big fan of CR Bible and generally follow the bible's 9 Primary Objectives to attack any CR Question. I would like to share those 9 Primary Objectives here with u. Hope it helps u as much as it has helped me..... or more : )
Primary Objective # 1 : Determine whether the stimulus contains an argument or if it is only a set of factual statements.
Primary Objective # 2 : If the stimulus contains an argument, identify the conclusion of the argument. If the
stimulus contains a fact set, examine each fact.
Primary Objective # 3 : If the stimulus contains an argument, determine if the argument is strong or weak.
Primary Objective # 4 : Read closely and know precisely what the author said. Do not generalize !
Primary Objective # 5 : Carefully read and identify the question stem. Do not assume that certain words are
automatically associated with certain question types.
Primary Objective # 6 : Prephase : after reading the question stem, take a moment to mentally formulate your
answer to the question stem.
Primary Objective # 7 : Always read each of the five answer choices.
Primary Objective # 8 : Separate the answer choices into Contenders n Losers. After u complete this process,
review the contenders and decide which answer is the correct one.
Primary Objective # 9 : If all five answer choices appear to be losers, return to the stimulus and re-evaluate the
argument.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
- Location: Chennai,India
- Thanked: 3 times
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
I am not convince with C. [ Others also definitely are not convincing]amazonviper wrote:mohit11 wrote:The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?!We do not have that data to prove option A.A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
We are not talking about features here and hence B is out of scopeB. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
There is a drop in number of assemblers in Borodia while the number of televisions sets sold has remained the same. So in order for the conclusion to stay true the output from Borodia should be low. In other words the time taken for an assemler to assemble one Television should not have decreased. If you voided option C, meaning that the efficiency of the assembler has increased then, we cannot confidently state that the number of imports from Vernland has increased because Borodia can still assemble the same amount of Televisions with lesser workforce. Hence C is the necessary assumption needed to support the conclusion.C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
No proof.D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
We dont have data to prove.E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few year
Hopefully I cleared your ambiguity. Where did you get this question. Nice post BTW.
If we do negate of C -> Average time per TV is reduced, so it means more TC can be assembled for a given time frame. But the argument is clearly saying that 'recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia'
This line is a premise for the conclusion so it means it must be true.
Hence we can say that even if average time is reduced, beacuse of some other reasons, the total assembled TV can be reduced (e.g some of the manufacturing units are not working now)
Thus point C is not a assumption here.
Can you please explain it in more detail.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:38 am
- Thanked: 10 times
The explanation is good.. but then .. in "C"... negation oof "not decrased" should be "decrased" not "increased"... How do we reach the conclusion.. ie "C" as the answer...amazonviper wrote:mohit11 wrote:The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?!We do not have that data to prove option A.A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
We are not talking about features here and hence B is out of scopeB. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
There is a drop in number of assemblers in Borodia while the number of televisions sets sold has remained the same. So in order for the conclusion to stay true the output from Borodia should be low. In other words the time taken for an assemler to assemble one Television should not have decreased. If you voided option C, meaning that the efficiency of the assembler has increased then, we cannot confidently state that the number of imports from Vernland has increased because Borodia can still assemble the same amount of Televisions with lesser workforce. Hence C is the necessary assumption needed to support the conclusion.C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
No proof.D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
We dont have data to prove.E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few year
Hopefully I cleared your ambiguity. Where did you get this question. Nice post BTW.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:02 pm
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:730
Mohit, good post
If I haven't seen your heading "V.Tricky", I would have selected "A".
After the second pass I could see whats wrong. As you have mentioned shoudl learn to get it in the first pass
Thanks.
If I haven't seen your heading "V.Tricky", I would have selected "A".
After the second pass I could see whats wrong. As you have mentioned shoudl learn to get it in the first pass
Thanks.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:11 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
- GMAT Score:640
Agree with the above w/ doubts on C : the assembly time has NOT decreased. Why it says NOT; it should says the assembly time has decreased, or stayed the same => leading to a necessity of imports from Vernland.
IF it says has not decreased, it means that it stayed the same or increased=> thus leading to the conclusion that imports from Vernland are not necessary anymore ( thus WEAKENiNG the argument).
Please help!
IF it says has not decreased, it means that it stayed the same or increased=> thus leading to the conclusion that imports from Vernland are not necessary anymore ( thus WEAKENiNG the argument).
Please help!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
The stem says that Number of Borodia assemblers have reduced. So that prompts Borodia to IMPORT television from Vernland.ironsferri wrote:Agree with the above w/ doubts on C : the assembly time has NOT decreased. Why it says NOT; it should says the assembly time has decreased, or stayed the same => leading to a necessity of imports from Vernland.
IF it says has not decreased, it means that it stayed the same or increased=> thus leading to the conclusion that imports from Vernland are not necessary anymore ( thus WEAKENiNG the argument).
Please help!
let us take few numbers to understand quantitatively :
No of Workers in Borodia : 100
No of televisions assembled by one worker : 5
Total number of televisions assembled by 100 workers : 100 * 5 = 500
So 500 is fixed amount to be sold in the market.
Now the Number of workers in Borodia has decreased : (say by 50) = 100 -50 = 50
Total number of televisions assembled by 50 workers : 50 * 5 = 250
Now Borodia has to keep up with its DEMAND. It has a option of doing so by "importing".
Here we are asked to prove that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased. !!
Option C say that
Efficiency of workers has not decreased. So it means that, to maintain the supply Bordia has to import TV from vernland .
Actually Option C is very very tricky.
Let me explain why so?? C says
efficicieny has not decreased;
It has TWO possibities
1. Efficicency coud remain same---- This is helpful to support the conclusion that imports will increase.
2. Efficicency has INCREASED. ---- Now if this is true then , it actually weakens the conclusion.
If efficiency increases then there is no need to import from Vernland.
So for the sake of strengthening the argument,we are forced to assume that "efficiency has remained same ".
Ok, if we have been asked to "weaken the argument", one possibility is we can again say that Efficicency has INCREASED.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
ironsferri wrote:Agree with the above w/ doubts on C : the assembly time has NOT decreased. Why it says NOT; it should says the assembly time has decreased, or stayed the same => leading to a necessity of imports from Vernland.
IF it says has not decreased, it means that it stayed the same or increased=> thus leading to the conclusion that imports from Vernland are not necessary anymore ( thus WEAKENiNG the argument).
Please help!
Plz see my previous post....
I agree with u. What if the efficiency has increased??? Yea, if that is the case it is weaken the argument.
- Wynn World
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:57 pm
I think most people had mistaked hours to make one tv vs number of tv/workder.
I was thinking that hours/tv had not decreased.
This is the keyword.
I was thinking that hours/tv had not decreased.
This is the keyword.
gmatmachoman wrote:The stem says that Number of Borodia assemblers have reduced. So that prompts Borodia to IMPORT television from Vernland.ironsferri wrote:Agree with the above w/ doubts on C : the assembly time has NOT decreased. Why it says NOT; it should says the assembly time has decreased, or stayed the same => leading to a necessity of imports from Vernland.
IF it says has not decreased, it means that it stayed the same or increased=> thus leading to the conclusion that imports from Vernland are not necessary anymore ( thus WEAKENiNG the argument).
Please help!
let us take few numbers to understand quantitatively :
No of Workers in Borodia : 100
No of televisions assembled by one worker : 5
Total number of televisions assembled by 100 workers : 100 * 5 = 500
So 500 is fixed amount to be sold in the market.
Now the Number of workers in Borodia has decreased : (say by 50) = 100 -50 = 50
Total number of televisions assembled by 50 workers : 50 * 5 = 250
Now Borodia has to keep up with its DEMAND. It has a option of doing so by "importing".
Here we are asked to prove that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased. !!
Option C say that
Efficiency of workers has not decreased. So it means that, to maintain the supply Bordia has to import TV from vernland .
Actually Option C is very very tricky.
Let me explain why so?? C says
efficicieny has not decreased;
It has TWO possibities
1. Efficicency coud remain same---- This is helpful to support the conclusion that imports will increase.
2. Efficicency has INCREASED. ---- Now if this is true then , it actually weakens the conclusion.
If efficiency increases then there is no need to import from Vernland.
So for the sake of strengthening the argument,we are forced to assume that "efficiency has remained same ".
Ok, if we have been asked to "weaken the argument", one possibility is we can again say that Efficicency has INCREASED.