Critical Reasoning

Because of the recent transformation of the market, Quore Inc. must increase productivity 10 percent over the course of the next two years or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them also be true?
(A) It is only Quore's production structure that makes it possible fro Quore to survive the transformation of the market.
(B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.
(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.
(D) Because of the transformation of the market Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years.
(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.

OA is E my question is why is B wrong

My choice C

P: Q must increase 10% or it will go bankrupt. If 10% is possible then 20% is attainable.

Also If Q increases it's productivity by 10%, then it can avoid bankruptcy. But, increasing productivity is not sufficient condition to avoid bankruptcy. This is choice B.

E : If 10% is not attainable (=20% is also not attainable) then it will go bankrupt.

So I am going with E here.

B for me.

IMO E going by the Transposition logic.
If a -> b & if ~b -> ~a

Confused between A and B

I wud choose B though

IMO C
How to eliminate C.

Cause: Transformation
Effect: Increase in Productivity to avoid bankruptcy.

No cause no effect is C

Received a PM on this question:

This is an LSAT question, it is from the June 1992 test, first logical reasoning section, question 25.

This is an inference question. The best way to do these questions on a consistent basis is through process of elimination. It is true that on certain questions you will be able to settle on one answer as exactly fitting the situation, it is a better overall plan to use process of elimination. So you are eliminating any choices that COULD BE FALSE.

So, in particular we are asked about choice B here since many people have selected this one...

How can we eliminate choice B as being Could Be False?

Well, B says that Quore will not go bankrupt, but this is not discussed in the stimulus. The stimulus gives us a circumstance where Quore WILL go bankrupt (namely if productivity is not increased 10%).

So it is impossible to ever say in the answer choice that Quore WILL NOT go bankrupt. Maybe they are so far in debt that they will go bankrupt EVEN IF they increase productivity.

Remember this about necessary conditions - increasing productivity is necessary to avoid bankruptcy, but is it sufficient to say that they can avoid bankruptcy? Not necessarily -- just like taking GMAT is necessary for business school - but it is not sufficient.

So even if they increase productivity the economy may go down and they go bankrupt anyway.

Hope it helps!

This was really a good conversation. If B is not the right answer then E is the correct one, right??????? I got confused between B and E and i chose B. But now i have understood that B is the wrong one and so E is the right one. Kindly reply....

David,

Thanks for the awesome reply. I have a couple of questions..

First Question
In the GMAT world (which I believe is the common man's world) I understood that there can only be 2 states possible for a company that is..

A company can either go bankrupt or a company can "not" go bankrupt. Can any company be in another state.So if a passage says...


"Because of the recent transformation of the market, Quore Inc. must increase productivity 10 percent over the course of the next two years or it will certainly go bankrupt"

So in the GMAT world, when the passage uses a strong term like "will" (as used above)should we infer that the company might even if it achieves the required productivity improvement. The reason I am asking is the if I get a statement on the GMAT that states the following:

"Roger will die if he does not get a glass of water in the next 1 hr"

Do I infer from the above that Roger may or may not die even if he gets a glass of water in the next 1 hr.

Second question:

Choice E: I understand the logic of choice E that stems from the following statement in the argument: "Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. "

But doesn't the above statement assume that Quore is not changing its production structure to achieve the 10% productivity increase in the first place.. There is nothing in the argument that stops Quore from changing its production structure to achieve the 10% productivity increase. Given this assumption, does choice E still hold true because, Quore could skip bankruptcy by changing its production structure which kind of makes choice E pointless.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Received a PM on this question:

This is an LSAT question, it is from the June 1992 test, first logical reasoning section, question 25.

This is an inference question. The best way to do these questions on a consistent basis is through process of elimination. It is true that on certain questions you will be able to settle on one answer as exactly fitting the situation, it is a better overall plan to use process of elimination. So you are eliminating any choices that COULD BE FALSE.

So, in particular we are asked about choice B here since many people have selected this one...

How can we eliminate choice B as being Could Be False?

Well, B says that Quore will not go bankrupt, but this is not discussed in the stimulus. The stimulus gives us a circumstance where Quore WILL go bankrupt (namely if productivity is not increased 10%).

So it is impossible to ever say in the answer choice that Quore WILL NOT go bankrupt. Maybe they are so far in debt that they will go bankrupt EVEN IF they increase productivity.

Remember this about necessary conditions - increasing productivity is necessary to avoid bankruptcy, but is it sufficient to say that they can avoid bankruptcy? Not necessarily -- just like taking GMAT is necessary for business school - but it is not sufficient.

So even if they increase productivity the economy may go down and they go bankrupt anyway.

Hope it helps!

It helps a lot indeed. Thank you very much!!!
I missed a similar question and using your tips here I am able to eradicate 4 answer choices now but still can't figure out why B is correct on this one :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/inference-qu ... tml#370249
Will appreciate if you can throw some light on this one too

deep.amangmat -

First question:

"Roger will die if he does not get a glass of water in the next 1 hr"

Do I infer from the above that Roger may or may not die even if he gets a glass of water in the next 1 hr.

Yes. You infer that it is still possible that he will die EVEN if he gets the glass of water! He may be in the desert and in one hour he will die of thirst, but even if he gets the water he may get bitten by a poisonous snake.

The key is to read the statement exactly as written - without adding any assumptions. The statement says that "without a glass of water, in one hour he will die." It does not say the he will live if he gets the water. Read critically and literally.

Second question

Choice E: I understand the logic of choice E that stems from the following statement in the argument: "Quore's production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable. "

But doesn't the above statement assume that Quore is not changing its production structure to achieve the 10% productivity increase in the first place.. There is nothing in the argument that stops Quore from changing its production structure to achieve the 10% productivity increase. Given this assumption, does choice E still hold true because, Quore could skip bankruptcy by changing its production structure which kind of makes choice E pointless.

I am going to need you to read literally again!!

The stimulus merely tells us that "Quore Inc. must increase productivity 10 percent over the course of the next two years or it will certainly go bankrupt."

So if Quore is unable to raise productivity to that level they will go bankrupt. (Notice in conjunction with your question above that they might raise their productivity and still go bankrupt anyway! For example, they may not be insured and all of their buildings burn down. Remember we are only told that they WILL go bankrupt without the 10% increase.)

Now the stimulus gives us something like the transitive property in math. It says if 10% is possible, so is 20%. And that means that "if 20% is not possible, then neither is 10%." and that is the key. If 20% is not attainable, then 10% is not attainable and bankruptcy will happen.

And that brings us to choice E.
"E. If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt."

This is exactly what we found to be true from the reasoning above.

That's both questions!

dv2020 -

I have replied to the inference question that you have mentioned above

https://www.beatthegmat.com/inference-qu ... tml#370249

hi why not go with A as we have been asked to find an answer that is based on the statement ..can someone explain this please..

Ganesh wrote:

hi why not go with A as we have been asked to find an answer that is based on the statement ..can someone explain this please..

Choice A says:
"(A) It is only Quore's production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market."

Now please keep in mind that this an LSAT question so the logic is a bit more technical than the GMAT, however the principles are the same.

As to choice A, you have to ask yourself, "are we even told that Quore will survive?" I know this is a little extreme but it can really help you understand the principles of inference questions.

The stimulus gives us a scenario where Quore will GO BANKRUPT and that is if it does not meet the 10% increase. But it may be the Quore is doomed anyway. We do not know and an inference question is all about what MUST BE TRUE. So unless the stimulus literally tells you that Quore will survive the transformation AND that the reason is the production structure then A is not MUST BE TRUE.