Assumption CR

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:06 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:8 members

Assumption CR

by charu_mahajan » Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:11 pm
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?

1) 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.

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

3) 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.

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

5) 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 : MGMAT
OA : After some discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 6:05 am
Thanked: 3 times

by ihatemaths » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:11 pm
D or 4 is it the answer ? I tried negating D , it invalidates the conclusion of representatives claim of "no favouritsm"

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:56 pm
Thanked: 60 times
Followed by:10 members

by anuprajan5 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:16 pm
The answer is B

The reason being that the parents need to clear the criterion first before being given the babies. If they didn't, then there would be favoritism involved.

Regards
Anup

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 6:05 am
Thanked: 3 times

by ihatemaths » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:44 pm
I am really weak at negating the answer choices . Could someone post their views of the methods to negate.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:06 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:8 members

by charu_mahajan » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:17 am
Hi All,

Here is the official answer -

OA: B

I'd appreciate if someone can explain this choice in detail.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by gmatdriller » Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:06 pm
charu_mahajan wrote:Hi All,

Here is the official answer -

OA: B

I'd appreciate if someone can explain this choice in detail.
Agency gave children to 8(of 10 final shortlisted) parents for adoption.
Critics say: the practice is biased (only those who knew agency staff got a child.

Think about it this way: Imagine that of a total 100 prospective parents, almost ALL knew (or are friends of) agency staffs; would the critics say the process is biased or repleted with favoritism? Familiarity or acquaintance is not an exclusive advantage to virtually all those under consideration


Agency says it gives out the babies to qualified parents and in the best interest of the children.

For the process to be fair as implied, agency reps must have assumed above bold text.

Not an expert but this is my 2 cents...

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:06 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:8 members

by charu_mahajan » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:15 am
The answer is B

The reason being that the parents need to clear the criterion first before being given the babies. If they didn't, then there would be favoritism involved.

Regards
Anup
@ anupranjan

I think i did not understand the wording of this option in the beginning.

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

What I understood: Parents surpassed the criteria after the application process.
What you seem to say: Surpassed criteria -> got acquainted -> began application process.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:56 pm
Thanked: 60 times
Followed by:10 members

by anuprajan5 » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:31 am
Charu,

If we had 100 parents and 10 of them got selected, out of which 8 were known before the selection process, then there is favoritism involved.

But if we had 100 parents and 10 of them cleared the criterion (irrespective of whether they knew the staff) and most of these people were known to the staff, then there is no favoritism. The crucial part being that they have to clear the criterion without bias.

Regards
Anup