Critical Reasoning

Here is another original question, designed to be pretty tough. Please let me know if you like it and if it is fair. Any recommendations for changes are greatly appreciated. Thanks!


Veterinarian: A recent survey estimates that 90% of domestic horses in the United States have some degree of lameness. In fact, the practice of nailing metal horseshoes to horses' hooves was developed to hold together hooves deteriorated due to the unnatural conditions of confinement in wooden stalls. Hoof problems and lameness are very rare among wild horses. Therefore, in order to strengthen hooves and prevent lameness in domestic horses, horse owners should create living conditions as close as possible to those horses experience in the wild.

Which of the following, is an assumption required by the veterinarian's argument?

A) The conditions under which wild horses live play a role in creating strong hooves and avoiding lameness.

B) Domestic horses are genetically identical to wild horses.

C) The hooves of horses confined to stalls must be treated every six to eight weeks by a professional Ferrier.

D) It is not more convenient for the horse owner to keep horses in stalls.

E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild creates a healthier horse in all respects, including stronger hooves.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Here is another original question, designed to be pretty tough. Please let me know if you like it and if it is fair. Any recommendations for changes are greatly appreciated. Thanks!


Veterinarian: A recent survey estimates that 90% of domestic horses in the United States have some degree of lameness. In fact, the practice of nailing metal horseshoes to horses' hooves was developed to hold together hooves deteriorated due to the unnatural conditions of confinement in wooden stalls. Hoof problems and lameness are very rare among wild horses. Therefore, in order to strengthen hooves and prevent lameness in domestic horses, horse owners should create living conditions as close as possible to those horses experience in the wild.

Which of the following, is an assumption required by the veterinarian's argument?

A) The conditions under which wild horses live play a role in creating strong hooves and avoiding lameness.

B) Domestic horses are genetically identical to wild horses.

C) The hooves of horses confined to stalls must be treated every six to eight weeks by a professional Ferrier.

D) It is not more convenient for the horse owner to keep horses in stalls.

E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild creates a healthier horse in all respects, including stronger hooves.

I could eliminate B, C and D.
Took some time to pick A

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Here is another original question, designed to be pretty tough. Please let me know if you like it and if it is fair. Any recommendations for changes are greatly appreciated. Thanks!


Veterinarian: A recent survey estimates that 90% of domestic horses in the United States have some degree of lameness. In fact, the practice of nailing metal horseshoes to horses' hooves was developed to hold together hooves deteriorated due to the unnatural conditions of confinement in wooden stalls. Hoof problems and lameness are very rare among wild horses. Therefore, in order to strengthen hooves and prevent lameness in domestic horses, horse owners should create living conditions as close as possible to those horses experience in the wild.

Which of the following, is an assumption required by the veterinarian's argument?

A) The conditions under which wild horses live play a role in creating strong hooves and avoiding lameness.

B) Domestic horses are genetically identical to wild horses.

C) The hooves of horses confined to stalls must be treated every six to eight weeks by a professional Ferrier.

D) It is not more convenient for the horse owner to keep horses in stalls.

E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild creates a healthier horse in all respects, including stronger hooves.

between A and E i would like to choose E based on the last sentence of the argument

A) The conditions under which wild horses live play a role in creating strong hooves and avoiding lameness.
this is my pick . The concept shift happens from
1 . premise - wild horses suffer less from Hoof problems and lameness
to
2. conclusion - horse owners should create living conditions as close as possible to those horses experience in the wild.
Assumption is that the conditions are responsible for lesser incidence of lameness in Wild Horses ...
B) Domestic horses are genetically identical to wild horses. out of scope

C) The hooves of horses confined to stalls must be treated every six to eight weeks by a professional Ferrier. out of scope

D) It is not more convenient for the horse owner to keep horses in stalls.
the stimulus conclusion just talks about mimicking the conditions in which wild horses live. So the horse owner does not necessarily have to improve stall conditions

E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild creates a healthier horse in all respects, including stronger hooves. I think this is nothing but a rephrase of the conclusion ...

OA is A

Deb - nice explanation! What you have typed in Green is very good.

Choice A is the correct answer to this question because it is an assumption that is necessary for the argument. If it were not true that the living conditions of wild horses play a role in creating strong hooves then the reason given for replicating these conditions no longer exists.

Choice B is out of scope or at least peripheral.

Choice C is a fact that might strengthen the idea of creating more natural living conditions for horses, but it is not required by the argument.

Choice D is irrelevant, even if it is more convenient to have horses in stalls, the argument is discussing the health of horses hooves, not convenience.

Choice E is be the best answer of all to a normal strengthen question, but it is not a good answer to an assumption question. Big claims and specific answers are generally not good answers to assumption questions. You do not want an answer that goes too far. It is not necessary that the horse be healthier in all respects. What if wild horses are malnourished are have parasites (both of which are actually true?) Even f the horse is only healthier in one respect - hooves - the argument does not fail. So this answer goes too far.

Think about the following:

Conclusion: "This pen is red."

Which of the following is assumed?

Answer A) All pens are red

Answer B) 5,101,203 pens are red

Answer C) at least one pen is red

A is a great answer to a regular strengthen question, but when negated (or taken away) it just becomes - not all pens are red, not a strong statement.

B is way too specific and when negated allows for any number of red pens except for specifically 5,101,203.

C is a very weak answer as written, but a great choice when negated. It becomes "there are no red pens." So it is clear that the conclusion relies on the existence of at least one red pen! This is a good assumption answer

Thanks David.. Am looking forward to your next one ...

It is A.

I was thinking about B too. But two things actually helped me to eliminate this option :-

1. there are 10% of the domestic horses who do not have this problem. Hence these horses can also be genetically identical whereas the 90% maybe not.

2. And of course , "gentically" is too broad a term to be used in this context.

debmalya_dutta wrote:Thanks David.. Am looking forward to your next one ...

I agree with Deb. Waiting eagerly for the next one..

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is A

Deb - nice explanation! What you have typed in Green is very good.

Choice A is the correct answer to this question because it is an assumption that is necessary for the argument. If it were not true that the living conditions of wild horses play a role in creating strong hooves then the reason given for replicating these conditions no longer exists.

Choice B is out of scope or at least peripheral.

Choice C is a fact that might strengthen the idea of creating more natural living conditions for horses, but it is not required by the argument.

Choice D is irrelevant, even if it is more convenient to have horses in stalls, the argument is discussing the health of horses hooves, not convenience.

Choice E is be the best answer of all to a normal strengthen question, but it is not a good answer to an assumption question. Big claims and specific answers are generally not good answers to assumption questions. You do not want an answer that goes too far. It is not necessary that the horse be healthier in all respects. What if wild horses are malnourished are have parasites (both of which are actually true?) Even f the horse is only healthier in one respect - hooves - the argument does not fail. So this answer goes too far.

Think about the following:

Conclusion: "This pen is red."

Which of the following is assumed?

Answer A) All pens are red

Answer B) 5,101,203 pens are red

Answer C) at least one pen is red

A is a great answer to a regular strengthen question, but when negated (or taken away) it just becomes - not all pens are red, not a strong statement.

B is way too specific and when negated allows for any number of red pens except for specifically 5,101,203.

C is a very weak answer as written, but a great choice when negated. It becomes "there are no red pens." So it is clear that the conclusion relies on the existence of at least one red pen! This is a good assumption answer

Your explanation is awesome. I chose A only.
I eliminated E when I saw "horses in the wild". We are talking about "wild horses". I do not think both the things are same.

You are right, A is the correct answer. But you can only really see that if you negate that answer choice. Assumption questions are the trickiest. Great question!

Hi David,I disagree with the OA.
I Folled the Negation technique professd by Veritas ,
I tried to negate A.
The result after negating A comes to be
F) The conditions under which wild horses live does not play a role in creating strong hooves and avoiding lameness.
The First guy who wrote the explanation just did not take the reason why hooves deteriote and the need for Horsenails arises in the first Place into consideration.
If we consider Sttmnt F above , conclusion does not get destroyed.
What if the living conditions do not play a role in creating strong hooves and avoiding lameness,but also do not prove to be harmful to the hooves , the conclusion stays.
The living conditions dont help, but they also dont harm
I negated E and I got G
G) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild does not create a healthier horse in all respects, including stronger hooves.
I find that Sttmnt G closes the Loophole now.Please Correct me.

Here is what I said above about choice E)

"Choice E is be the best answer of all to a normal strengthen question, but it is not a good answer to an assumption question. Big claims and specific answers are generally not good answers to assumption questions. You do not want an answer that goes too far. It is not necessary that the horse be healthier in all respects. What if wild horses are malnourished are have parasites (both of which are actually true?) Even f the horse is only healthier in one respect - hooves - the argument does not fail. So this answer goes too far."

Do you see what the problem is with E? As a general rule you do not want to select an assumption answer choice that is too absolute. It is hardly ever the case that something has to be "ALL"

For example, if my conclusion is "this pencil is orange" I do not need to know that "all pencils are orange." This is not required. In fact if you negate this and say, "not all pencils are orange" this does not do much to harm the conclusion. What you want to say is that "at least some pencil is orange." Without this you cannot have the conclusion.

Answer choice A is more like the second example. If the conditions where the wild horses live do not play a role in healthy hooves then we have no reason to replicate these.

I finally understood what u meant.
David, Can u clarify the negation technique for such a sentence Do we negate it as following :
E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild does not creates a healthier horse in not all respects, including stronger hooves

or do we negate it this way

E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild does not create a healthier horse in all respects, including stronger hooves

or

E) Replicating the conditions experienced by horses in the wild creates a healthier horse in not all respects, including stronger hooves
PLS GUIDE

Hi David.

I again apologize for re-starting old topics.

Let us consider a true story : My room-mate works out at the gym 5 days a week. His routine lasts for 1 hour. I assumed that if I follow his routine and his frequency of working out I would be as toned as him. I tried and it didnt work out. The difference - our genes. I also assumed that he didn't take any supplements ( which means that I am not disputing the OA; I guess the OA is analogous to me assuming that only following his routine and no extra help will give me the same physique? )

Getting back to the question, in all probability, domestic horses come from a long line of horses who were bred domestically. Therefore, there is a possibility that if these horses are bred in an environment which resembles wilder living conditions, there might be furthur damage to the horses' gait/hooves. So I feel " B" is also an option here.

"In fact, the practice of nailing metal horseshoes to horses’ hooves was developed to hold together hooves deteriorated due to the unnatural conditions of confinement in wooden stalls" - This gives the feeling that it is a given that conditions play a part in the deterioration of hooves because it is stated as a fact. This particular statement stopped me from choosing "A" as the answer.

No need to apologize...

You are over thinking this and bringing in outside knowledge (or more like outside doubts)

First, your reason for not choosing A is not a valid reason on the GMAT. Basically you are thinking that if something is actually stated it cannot be an assumption. This is never a problem on the GMAT. Never do they have an answer that would be correct but it has actually been stated. Never. And in this case it was not stated. It says that the practice originally started due to the conditions in the stalls. This is not the same thing that A is saying. For this to not be an assumption it has to be stated word for word. Does not happen on the GMAT.

Second, do you see that it is not necessary that wild horses and genetic horses be "genetically identical" as B states? On assumption questions incorrect answers often go too far. Is anything genetically identical? Maybe identical twins, but that is it. Do you see how this is not required? How it asks too much?

Choice (A) is required though because this argument points to the natural conditions of horses in the wild as a way to prevent lameness in domestic horses. If A is not true and if the conditions do not play a role in strong hooves and avoiding lameness then what is the point of recreating this conditions?

Try to approach your practice questions thinking not of this particular question, but of what you can learn for the future. For this one I have given many takeaways in the early posts on this thread to help with assumption questions in the future!