Critical Reasoning

a play was performed as part of a benefit for a charity. Nobody who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit had ever seen the play performed before. Because of the high demand only people who had never seen the play performed before were allowed to buy tickets for the benefit. Therefore everyone who wanted to buy a ticket to the benefit was able to do so.

In order for this argument to be logically correct, it must also be true that

1, the people planning the benefit wanted to expose the play to a new audience
2, the play was not performed in a small theater with few seats
3, everyone who wanted to buy a ticket believed in the cause for which the benefit was held
4, there was no limit to the number of tickets available
5, everyone who was unable to buy a ticket did not want to buy one.

here the only assumption is number of tickets>number of persons who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit

hence ans option 4

liferocks wrote:here the only assumption is number of tickets>number of persons who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit

hence ans option 4

sorry, your correct answer is not my OA

bupbebeo wrote:a play was performed as part of a benefit for a charity. Nobody who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit had ever seen the play performed before. Because of the high demand only people who had never seen the play performed before were allowed to buy tickets for the benefit. Therefore everyone who wanted to buy a ticket to the benefit was able to do so.

In order for this argument to be logically correct, it must also be true that

1, the people planning the benefit wanted to expose the play to a new audience
2, the play was not performed in a small theater with few seats
3, everyone who wanted to buy a ticket believed in the cause for which the benefit was held
4, there was no limit to the number of tickets available
5, everyone who was unable to buy a ticket did not want to buy one.

1. Those who want to buy tickets have not seen play performed before.
2. All such people are allowed to buy tickets.
3. All people were able to do so..means buying a tickets .

Lets see the option now:

1, the people planning the benefit wanted to expose the play to a new audience - correct
2, the play was not performed in a small theater with few seats - out of scope
3, everyone who wanted to buy a ticket believed in the cause for which the benefit was held - argument is not about the cause
4, there was no limit to the number of tickets available - may be correct, but no relation with people.
5, everyone who was unable to buy a ticket did not want to buy one. - out of scope, say the thing other way around.

electrico wrote:

bupbebeo wrote:a play was performed as part of a benefit for a charity. Nobody who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit had ever seen the play performed before. Because of the high demand only people who had never seen the play performed before were allowed to buy tickets for the benefit. Therefore everyone who wanted to buy a ticket to the benefit was able to do so.

In order for this argument to be logically correct, it must also be true that

1, the people planning the benefit wanted to expose the play to a new audience
2, the play was not performed in a small theater with few seats
3, everyone who wanted to buy a ticket believed in the cause for which the benefit was held
4, there was no limit to the number of tickets available
5, everyone who was unable to buy a ticket did not want to buy one.

1. Those who want to buy tickets have not seen play performed before.
2. All such people are allowed to buy tickets.
3. All people were able to do so..means buying a tickets .

Lets see the option now:

1, the people planning the benefit wanted to expose the play to a new audience - correct
2, the play was not performed in a small theater with few seats - out of scope
3, everyone who wanted to buy a ticket believed in the cause for which the benefit was held - argument is not about the cause
4, there was no limit to the number of tickets available - may be correct, but no relation with people.
5, everyone who was unable to buy a ticket did not want to buy one. - out of scope, say the thing other way around.

Your answer is also incorrect

IMO Option 5.

1. Exposure of play - out of scope
2. Size of theater - Cannot be deduced from argument
3. Belief in the cause - Irrelevant
4. Limit on tickets available - Out of scope
5. Only people who had not seen the play were allowed to buy tickets, and only those who hadn't seen the play wanted one. If it were true that everyone who wanted to buy a ticket managed to get one, then it should be true that those who didn't want one couldn't get one.

I hope I'm making sense.

Guys,

Can someone explain how can I convert the sentence below in a more meaningful sentence, I could not decipher it, the 2 negatives is very confusing. How to convert a negative sentence to a positive one?

"Nobody who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit had ever seen the play performed before"

Can I write "Everybody who wanted to buy tickets had never seen the play performed before". It took me alost 60 seconds to understand this, and I am still not sure whether I am correct.

What is the OA, I liked E.

Also, is this an inference question or an assumption question?

IMO E

take the negation of E :

some people were unable to buy a ticket, want to buy one.

it is directly breaking the conclusion, hence the assumption.

IMO E
It is not an assumption question but a must be true question.Hence the answer should be deduced from that given in the stimulus.
As per the stimulus,tickets were given to people who had not seen the play before because of its high demand.
The conclusion is everyone who wanted to buy the ticket was able to do so.
So it can be deduced that the number of tickets available=Number of tickets in demand.
Hence people who did not get the ticket did not try to buy it as given in E.
OA please

IMO, [spoiler]E

A - out of scope
B - out of scope
C - out of scope
D - suppose we had just 10 tickets. say that there were 9 people who wanted to buy a ticket. this is possible. this contradicts D.
E - must be true, by POE. further, this statement follows directly from the last statement, by the contrapositive.[/spoiler]

bupbebeo wrote:a play was performed as part of a benefit for a charity. Nobody who wanted to buy tickets to the benefit had ever seen the play performed before. Because of the high demand only people who had never seen the play performed before were allowed to buy tickets for the benefit. Therefore everyone who wanted to buy a ticket to the benefit was able to do so.

In order for this argument to be logically correct, it must also be true that

1, the people planning the benefit wanted to expose the play to a new audience
2, the play was not performed in a small theater with few seats
3, everyone who wanted to buy a ticket believed in the cause for which the benefit was held
4, there was no limit to the number of tickets available
5, everyone who was unable to buy a ticket did not want to buy one.

When we're asked for something that must be true in order for the argument to be true, we have an assumption question.

So, we're looking for the choice that MUST be true in order for the argument to make sense. Let's break the argument down into it's components.

Conclusion: everyone who wanted to buy a ticket was able to do so.

Evidence: only people who hadn't seen the play wanted to buy tickets; only people who hadn't seen the play were allowed to buy tickets.

What's missing? Well, we have no idea how many people want to buy tickets or how many tickets are available. The author has to be assuming that there were enough seats available to satisfy all the ticket wanters.

1) who cares what the planners want - out of scope.

2) maybe only 2 people want to buy tickets; since we don't know how many people want tickets, the size of the theatre is also out of scope.

3) believed in the cause? who cares - nothing to do with ticket availability - out of scope.

4) does it HAVE to be true that there are unlimited tickets? Nope - it just has to be true that there are enough tickets to satisfy the people who want them. Too extreme.

(As an aside, (4) would be a great answer for a strengthen question, on which extreme choices can be correct; beware extreme choices on assumption and inference questions, however.)

5) well, if some of the people unable to buy a ticket did want one, the conclusion is destroyed. Since the opposite of (5) wrecks the conclusion, (5) must be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

If we get rid of the double negative in (5), we have:

"everyone who wanted a ticket was able to buy one"

which is exactly what we need to prove the conclusion.