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

Redeem

Hard Assumption - Manhattan

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:5 members

Hard Assumption - Manhattan

by Mo2men » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:19 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

Source: Manhattan
OA: B

Dear GMATGuru,

1- Why choice A is wrong? and how to negate a choice with comparison like choice A ?
2-Can you shed light about the OA? How can be negated and makes the conclusion fall apart? I don't understand. Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument that It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed ............. before initiating the adoption process. How is it an assumption?

Thanks in advance
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:03 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Option A - INCORRECT.
According to the statement of the Adoption Agency Representative, and without any contrary statement from parents who are unacquainted with the staff about favoritism of placement of babies, then it is indeed truthful to say that the agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

Option B - CORRECT.
This option is best suitable to adopt as an assumption to which the agency representative argument is based on. After a scrutinized meditation of the representative claim, it is obvious that before the agency gives out a baby for adoption, definitely the parent has gone through series of examination, testing , visiting, mental and physical checkup capability to be sure of accurate parenting of the adopted child before handling over. However, parents who were previously acquainted with the staff of the agency before beginning the application process will be having an edge over others because, their friendly relationship with the staff would have granted them vital information about the rules, regulation and procedures about the adoption process which indeed will seem as favoritism in the sight of those who are not acquainted with the staffs prior before adoption of a child. Therefore, it is possible for parents with acquaintance with staff to surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by own policy.

Option C - INCORRECT.
This option has decided to checkmate the period at which the eight babies and the tenth babies were adopted without stating the reasons behind the difference in number and period which the adoption has taken place.

Option D - INCORRECT.
Actually, it is reasonable to say that most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption because they don't have prior knowledge of the procedure processes and requirement needed for baby grant.

Option E - INCORRECT.
This option is justifying the claim of the adoption agency representative claim of not in a business of favoritism. According to the claim of the representative, the agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but also surpass those criteria for adoption procedures.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:10 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Mo2men wrote:Dear GMATGuru,

1- Why choice A is wrong? and how to negate a choice with comparison like choice A ?
2-Can you shed light about the OA? How can be negated and makes the conclusion fall apart? I don't understand. Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument that It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed ............. before initiating the adoption process. How is it an assumption?

Thanks in advance
Premise:
All of the applicants given babies far surpassed the adoption criteria.
Conclusion:
In placing 8 of the 10 babies with friends, the staff was not guilty of favoritism.

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.

B, negated:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were not personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
In other words:
Most of the viable applicants were not friends of the staff.
Given this information, one would expect that most of the babies would be placed with applicants who were not friends of the staff.
Implication:
In giving 80% of the babies to FRIENDS, the staff WAS guilty of favoritism -- a clear invalidation of the conclusion.
Since the negation of B invalidates the conclusion, B is an assumption: a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold.

The correct answer is B.

A, negated:
The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.
In other words:
Babies placed with friends have had better outcomes than babies placed with non-friends.
This information SUPPORTS the conclusion that the agency did not show favoritism in placing most of the babies with friends.
Since the negation of the correct answer must invalidate the conclusion, eliminate A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:5 members

by Mo2men » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:03 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Mo2men wrote:Dear GMATGuru,

1- Why choice A is wrong? and how to negate a choice with comparison like choice A ?
2-Can you shed light about the OA? How can be negated and makes the conclusion fall apart? I don't understand. Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument that It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed ............. before initiating the adoption process. How is it an assumption?

Thanks in advance
Premise:
All of the applicants given babies far surpassed the adoption criteria.
Conclusion:
In placing 8 of the 10 babies with friends, the staff was not guilty of favoritism.

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.

B, negated:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were not personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
In other words:
Most of the viable applicants were not friends of the staff.
Given this information, one would expect that most of the babies would be placed with applicants who were not friends of the staff.
Implication:
In giving 80% of the babies to FRIENDS, the staff WAS guilty of favoritism -- a clear invalidation of the conclusion.
Since the negation of B invalidates the conclusion, B is an assumption: a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold.
The correct answer is B.
Dear Mitch,

Thanks for you reply. I still have question to understand how the assumption at hand works

1- Does the assumption at hand assume that ' the general population' has same pattern as the 'sample' that was cited in LAST one ( It is true that eight of our last ten babies)
2- In my early question, Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument that It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed ............. before initiating the adoption process. How is it an assumption?
3- I still do not know how the negation invalidate the conclusion. I believe it supports favoritism. Can you elaborate ?

Thanks in advance
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

adoption bias

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:12 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Mo2men wrote:Dear Mitch,

Thanks for you reply. I still have question to understand how the assumption at hand works

1- Does the assumption at hand assume that ' the general population' has same pattern as the 'sample' that was cited in LAST one ( It is true that eight of our last ten babies)
The conclusion is constrained to the case at hand:
Of the 10 babies recently placed with parents, 8 were given to friends of the staff.
The assumption is that the premise (the parents given babies -- including the 8 friends --all far surpassed the agency's criteria) is sufficient to prove the conclusion (the staff did not favor its friends).
2- In my early question, Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument that It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed ............. before initiating the adoption process. How is it an assumption?
OA:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
This option refers not to applicants who actually received a baby but only to those who surpassed the criteria and were deemed ELIGIBLE to receive a baby.

Passage:
It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
This statement refers to parents who actually RECEIVED a baby.

The two groups are not the same.
It is likely that many applicants who were ELIGIBLE did not actually RECEIVE a baby.
3- I still do not know hothe negation invalidate the conclusion. I believe it supports favoritism. Can you elaborate ?
Consider the following case:
1000 prospective parents apply to adopt a baby.
Of these 1000 applicants, 100 far surpass the criteria and are deemed eligible to receive a baby.
B, negated:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were not personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
The negation of B indicates that a majority of the 100 eligible applicants were NOT friends of the staff.
Then why were most of the babies -- 8 out of 10 -- given to friends?
The implication is that the staff favored its friends when deciding which of the 100 eligible applicants would actually receive a baby, invalidating the conclusion that there was no favoritism in the application process.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:39 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:5 members

by Mo2men » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:34 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Mo2men wrote:Dear Mitch,

Thanks for you reply. I still have question to understand how the assumption at hand works

1- Does the assumption at hand assume that ' the general population' has same pattern as the 'sample' that was cited in LAST one ( It is true that eight of our last ten babies)
The conclusion is constrained to the case at hand:
Of the 10 babies recently placed with parents, 8 were given to friends of the staff.
The assumption is that the premise (the parents given babies -- including the 8 friends --all far surpassed the agency's criteria) is sufficient to prove the conclusion (the staff did not favor its friends).
2- In my early question, Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument that It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed ............. before initiating the adoption process. How is it an assumption?
OA:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
This option refers not to applicants who actually received a baby but only to those who surpassed the criteria and were deemed ELIGIBLE to receive a baby.

Passage:
It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
This statement refers to parents who actually RECEIVED a baby.

The two groups are not the same.
It is likely that many applicants who were ELIGIBLE did not actually RECEIVE a baby.
3- I still do not know hothe negation invalidate the conclusion. I believe it supports favoritism. Can you elaborate ?
Consider the following case:
1000 prospective parents apply to adopt a baby.
Of these 1000 applicants, 100 far surpass the criteria and are deemed eligible to receive a baby.
B, negated:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were not personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
The negation of B indicates that a majority of the 100 eligible applicants were NOT friends of the staff.
Then why were most of the babies -- 8 out of 10 -- given to friends?
The implication is that the staff favored its friends when deciding which of the 100 eligible applicants would actually receive a baby, invalidating the conclusion that there was no favoritism in the application process.
Thanks a lo, Mitch for great explanation. Now you made it easy :)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1