INFERENCE Question in CR

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm
Thanked: 4 times

INFERENCE Question in CR

by nandy1984 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:16 pm
In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers made pie dough together using rolling pins and other utensils. Each father-son pair used a rolling pin that was distinctively different from those used by the other father-son pairs, and each father repeated the phrase "rolling pin" each time his son used it. But when the children were asked to identify all of the rolling pins among a group of kitchen utensils that included several rolling pins, each child picked only the one that he had used. Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the information above?
a) The children did not grasp the function of a rolling pin.
b) No two children understood the name "rolling pin" to apply to the same object.
c) The children understood that all rolling pins have the same general shape.
d) Each child was able to identify correctly only the utensils that he had used.
e) The children were not able to distinguish the rolling pins they used from other rolling pins.

Since the inference questions must be proved from the above statements without any additional assumptions (a) talking about the function is wrong... (d) seems to be generalizing on all the utensiles rather than talking about the rolling pins, which the passage is interested in...Can any one help me how the other choices can be eliminated?... And it would be of great help if you can briefly explain the Inference questions...Thanks

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:07 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:14 members
GMAT Score:750

by CappyAA » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:44 pm
IMO B.

I think you're right with your reasoning for ruling out A and D. I can rule out E very easily because we can infer exactly the opposite. The children were able to distinguish their specific rolling pins, so E is wrong. C seems to be a bit of a stretch. All we know is that the children picked their own specific rolling pin - we have no idea if they know that all have the same shape or not.

B works because it is simple and true. When all the kids were asked to pick out the rolling pin, they all picked out the specific one they had used. Since they associated "rolling pin" with the specific object they used and not the general tool, none of them understood the name to apply to the same object.
Taking the GMAT Again...PhD this time!

October 2008 Score: GMAT - 750 (50 Q, 41 V) :D

Manhattan GMAT 1 - 11/20/11 - 750 (50 Q, 42 V)
Manhattan GMAT 2 - 12/3/11 - 780 (51 Q, 45 V)

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:37 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Thanked: 154 times
Followed by:74 members
GMAT Score:770

by Whitney Garner » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:21 am
nandy1984 wrote:In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers made pie dough together using rolling pins and other utensils. Each father-son pair used a rolling pin that was distinctively different from those used by the other father-son pairs, and each father repeated the phrase "rolling pin" each time his son used it. But when the children were asked to identify all of the rolling pins among a group of kitchen utensils that included several rolling pins, each child picked only the one that he had used. Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the information above?
a) The children did not grasp the function of a rolling pin.
b) No two children understood the name "rolling pin" to apply to the same object.
c) The children understood that all rolling pins have the same general shape.
d) Each child was able to identify correctly only the utensils that he had used.
e) The children were not able to distinguish the rolling pins they used from other rolling pins.

Since the inference questions must be proved from the above statements without any additional assumptions (a) talking about the function is wrong... (d) seems to be generalizing on all the utensiles rather than talking about the rolling pins, which the passage is interested in...Can any one help me how the other choices can be eliminated?... And it would be of great help if you can briefly explain the Inference questions...Thanks
Hi nandy1984!

The key to inference is to avoid making ANY assumptions (something we often do when talking about "inferences" in the real world. For example, if I walked into the room with wet hair, what could you infer? In the real world: it's raining outside, I just showered, or maybe someone dumped a bucket of water on my head?? On the GMAT: NONE of those are acceptable. The only thing you can legally infer is that my hair is NOT dry!!

So we are looking at "logical" inference. This means that the correct answer must tie directly to facts in the argument with only slight variations (ie. we can take a look in the negative space: If my hair is wet you can infer (the negative) that my hair is NOT dry).

So for this question, answer choice B makes the most sense:

- From sentence 2, we know that NO TWO kids used the same object as a rolling pin,
- and from sentence 3, we know that each student only identified their own object when asked to find a rolling pin.

So, every child picked a DIFFERENT object to mean rolling pin...
No two children understood the name "rolling pin" to apply to the same object.

:)
Whit
Whitney Garner
GMAT Instructor & Instructor Developer
Manhattan Prep

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Math is a lot like love - a simple idea that can easily get complicated :)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by nandy1984 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:36 am
CappyAA wrote:IMO B.

I think you're right with your reasoning for ruling out A and D. I can rule out E very easily because we can infer exactly the opposite. The children were able to distinguish their specific rolling pins, so E is wrong. C seems to be a bit of a stretch. All we know is that the children picked their own specific rolling pin - we have no idea if they know that all have the same shape or not.

B works because it is simple and true. When all the kids were asked to pick out the rolling pin, they all picked out the specific one they had used. Since they associated "rolling pin" with the specific object they used and not the general tool, none of them understood the name to apply to the same object.
From your explanation i understood is this:
e) can be eliminated as it talks opposite of what the passage says...since the children are able to recognize the rolling pin thay used...so (e) is out of the race...
We are now left with (b),(c)
(c) is like introducing new assumption that the rolling pins have the same shape..If the rolling pins would have been of same shape the children would have recognized all of them...other thing is the passage doesnt talk about the shape of the rolling pins...So (c) is out of the race...
We are left with (b) only...But i am not confident to pick (b) i choose be only by process of elimination...i just want to know how can i solve this problem without elimination...is there any chance???? As i gave a concrete reason why i eliminated for the other choices but could not give any choice why (b) is correct...if you can explain me...thanks

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by nandy1984 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:00 am
Whitney Garner wrote:
nandy1984 wrote:In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers made pie dough together using rolling pins and other utensils. Each father-son pair used a rolling pin that was distinctively different from those used by the other father-son pairs, and each father repeated the phrase "rolling pin" each time his son used it. But when the children were asked to identify all of the rolling pins among a group of kitchen utensils that included several rolling pins, each child picked only the one that he had used. Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the information above?
a) The children did not grasp the function of a rolling pin.
b) No two children understood the name "rolling pin" to apply to the same object.
c) The children understood that all rolling pins have the same general shape.
d) Each child was able to identify correctly only the utensils that he had used.
e) The children were not able to distinguish the rolling pins they used from other rolling pins.

Since the inference questions must be proved from the above statements without any additional assumptions (a) talking about the function is wrong... (d) seems to be generalizing on all the utensiles rather than talking about the rolling pins, which the passage is interested in...Can any one help me how the other choices can be eliminated?... And it would be of great help if you can briefly explain the Inference questions...Thanks
Hi nandy1984!

The key to inference is to avoid making ANY assumptions (something we often do when talking about "inferences" in the real world. For example, if I walked into the room with wet hair, what could you infer? In the real world: it's raining outside, I just showered, or maybe someone dumped a bucket of water on my head?? On the GMAT: NONE of those are acceptable. The only thing you can legally infer is that my hair is NOT dry!!

So we are looking at "logical" inference. This means that the correct answer must tie directly to facts in the argument with only slight variations (ie. we can take a look in the negative space: If my hair is wet you can infer (the negative) that my hair is NOT dry).

So for this question, answer choice B makes the most sense:

- From sentence 2, we know that NO TWO kids used the same object as a rolling pin,
- and from sentence 3, we know that each student only identified their own object when asked to find a rolling pin.

So, every child picked a DIFFERENT object to mean rolling pin...
No two children understood the name "rolling pin" to apply to the same object.

:)
Whit
Hello Whit....

Thanks for the early reply...The takeaways i got from your problem is
1) Inferences state the sentences in the passaage in a little bit modified way without introducing any new information..Or its like restating the things that is already said in the passage..
If i use this and slove this problem it works like this:
a)passage never talked about the function of the rolling pin so WRONG
b)No two children understood the name rolling pin to apply to the same object so they picked different objects..these are the objects which they have used...so this is restating the information given in the passage.
c) Shape is not discussed in the passage WRONG
d) children were asked to identify the rolling pin not the utensiles WRONG
e) This contradicts the data in the passage. WRONG..
So correct answer is B.. If you want to explain the TAKEAWAYS any in addition to this please do...thanks for the above explanation...tc

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:46 pm
We have yet another LSAT question! I teach this one as part of the inference lesson when I teach the LSAT.

Remember that with inference questions we are looking to eliminate the 4 answer choices that are not "must be true."

So we are looking for answer choices that are beyond the scope of the stimulus. Predictions can be eliminated as well. Obviously you can get rid of any choices that are proven wrong by the stimulus.

nandy1984 - So all of the takeaways can boil down to that: "Beyond the scope, predictions, and must be false." You have captured this when you said
a)passage never talked about the function of the rolling pin so WRONG

c) Shape is not discussed in the passage WRONG
d) children were asked to identify the rolling pin not the utensils WRONG
e) This contradicts the data in the passage. WRONG..
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by nandy1984 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:18 am
If i cautiously look at how i am solwing my INFERENCE questions what actually i am doing is this:

I am able to eliminate 3 out of 5 answer choices but it takes me lot of time to decide on the last 2 choices...If there are any techniques of disecting them...I am just trying to understand how we can solve the last two choices....The steps i follow in the INFERENCE...
1) First eliminate the answer which are OUT OF SCOPE....
2) Eliminate answers which are WEAKINING the above statements....
The first two are simple and we need not be cautious as we go through the passage we can have a feel for them...Now we will end up with 2 choices now we need to see:
3) which choice is more close to the argument...Or as DAVID said the answers that "MUST BE TRUE"
Sorry to make this post lengthy but it will help people like me who follow this kind of approach...If u have some more points please feel free to add them...TO BE PRECISE IAM LOOKING AT SITUATIONS WHEN WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DECIDE WHICH ANSWER CHOICE IS CORRECT...How will i break the DILEMMA.....Thanks once again....

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:17 pm
Technically you should never be down to two choices that appear to be equally good. Inference questions are all about elimination of those choices that could be false. If you look closely at the answer choices that you are debating, one of them will be beyond the scope or a prediction or something. Alternately, if you are down to two you might find that one of them is proven true by the stimulus, although it is usually easier to eliminate.

When you made the list above you forgot "predictions." These are much easier to spot and should be part of your first round of eliminations. Anything future-oriented is not "must be true." (the exception is self-proving answer choices).

What you call "weakening the premises" are answer choices that "must be false" -- Remember that you cannot weaken premises as premises are facts that you must accept. So it is more precise to say that these answer choices which contradict the premises are answers that must be false. These are harder to spot. I would not make this part of your first round of eliminations.

I would go:
First round: Out of Scope and Predictions

Then deal with answer choices that contradict and so must be false.

Can you give an example or two of when you are down to two choices? One of the dilemmas?
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:37 am
Location: Raleigh, NC
Thanked: 154 times
Followed by:74 members
GMAT Score:770

by Whitney Garner » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:02 am
Hi!

I received a PM asking for clarification on a couple of points made as well as some continued advice on dealing with Assumption questions so here goes (I warn you, it isn't short) :)
David@VeritasPrep wrote:What you call "weakening the premises" are answer choices that "must be false" -- Remember that you cannot weaken premises as premises are facts that you must accept.
Although I agree with David that for the majority of CR problems, the premises are presented as facts (and therefore not open for contention), there are sufficient exceptions to warrant mentioning. In general, premises are any statements, facts OR propositions that form the basis for a conclusion, and GMAT premises can (and do) come in a variety of shapes and sizes. While certainly not as frequently used as "fact" premises, some GMAT arguments do base conclusions on premises that are claims or projections. For this reason, we want to be a bit hesitant to always assume they are facts (and therefore never question or attempt to support them). A fair assumption for a problem might actually do the work of reaffirming or making a "claimy" premise true.

For example,
Question #44 from the Verbal OG Supplement wrote:Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

The economist's argument makes which of the following assumptions?

(a) Bank failures are caused when big borrowers default on loan repayments.
(b) A significant proportion of depositors maintain accounts at several different banks.
(c) The more a depositor has to deposit, the more careful he or she tends to be in selecting a bank.
(d) The difference in the interest rates paid to depositors by different banks is not a significant factor in bank failures.
(e) Potential depositors are able to determine which banks are secure against failure.
The correct answer in this problem actually addresses the premises in the argument; the argument derives its conclusion that depositors are partly to blame because it CLAIMS that depositors SHOULD/COULD be more selective but are CHOOSING not to be. So if I say that they SHOULD be selective, I am assuming that they actually CAN be...answer choice E.

In another example,
Question #111, OG 12th wrote: The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere. The train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes. Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the argument presented above?

(a) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.
(b) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.
(c) Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train's stations would be.
(d) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.
(e) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.
In this question, the correct answer (the one that most weakens the argument) is the choice that directly refutes a premise. The argument says that "consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft)" and the winning answer directly states that this is not the case for planes (aircraft). The correct answer, [spoiler]C, states that "Planes are not a free-wheel system..."[/spoiler].

So again, while the "claimy" premise is not nearly as common on the "facty" one, it is still worth noting that they exist and should be watched out for!

But this does bring us back to the original point (regarding assumption questions) - if a choice is WEAKENING a premise, it cannot be an assumption on which the argument relies. A correct assumption needs to make the argument true, so it would, by definition, need to have a strengthening effect.
David@VeritasPrep wrote:Technically you should never be down to two choices that appear to be equally good. Inference questions are all about elimination of those choices that could be false.
I can definitely agree that there will only be ONE completely correct answer, but you might (frequently) find yourself able to eliminate down to 2 answers and then feel stuck between them (I know this happens both to me and my students fairly frequently). In fact, this is actually quite common as the question difficulty increases. A great strategy (from the test writer's perspective) is to begin creating more and more tempting wrong answer choices.

So how do I handle Assumption questions??
(particularly during those scenarios when I find myself down to 2 tempting answers?)

I use a method of negation (we actually call this L.E.N. in our books, or Least Extreme Negation). So let's make sure we understand exactly what is meant by a GMAT assumption. In any argument there are actually TONS of assumptions swimming around, some necessary and some that would just be nice if they were true but aren't essential. Some assumptions are completely basic (if I tell you that Ashwin is 5 ft 10 inches tall, we must assume that my method of measuring is correct, or that my ruler was accurate). These "basic" assumptions are likely what David was talking about when he said that premises stated as facts should be assumed to be true. The GMAT won't ever introduce an assumption that basic (ie. if they give something as a fact, then I promise you we will not see an answer choice that simply states - "Yep, that fact was actually true!")

GMAT assumptions are only of 1 type, however, Those that MUST be true or the argument FAILS!. This is where the game of "Least Extreme" Negation comes in:

If an assumption MUST be true for an argument to hold, then I CANNOT even bend it without destroying the foundation of said argument.

Another example,
Question #63 from the OG Verbal Supplement wrote: Traditionally, decision making by managers that is reasoned step-by-step has been considered preferable to intuitive decision making. However, a recent study found that top managers used intuition significantly more than did most middle- or lower-level managers. This confirms the alternative view that intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning.

(D) Top managers use intuitive reasoning in making the majority of their decisions.

(E) Top managers are more effective at decision making than middle- or lower-level managers.
Which answer choice is the better assumption to make?

I have eliminated all of the other (less tempting) choices and left us with the 2 best options. And both sound pretty good, right! So how can we tell?

Let's try to "bend" each choice, and here is what I mean:

Bend (D): "Top managers use intuitive reasoning in making SOME of their decisions." (rather than "the majority")

Well, the argument states that top managers use intuitive reasoning more THAN DO middle and lower level managers. Could this be true if Top Managers are using intuitive reasoning for only SOME of their decisions. Well, they could use it 30% of the time and then middle-low could use it 10% of the time, so I have not really done anything to impact the argument. Hmmmmm....

Bend (E): "Top managers are EQUALLY AS effective at decision making as middle- or lower-level managers." (rather than "more")

Well, the conclusion is that Intuition is more effective, and the basis for that is due to the fact that Top managers use intuition more than low-middle managers. BUT, if top managers are only equally as effective as middle or low level manager, then how can I say that what they are doing (intuition) is better?? I can't! I just "bent" the assumption and "broke" the argument! [spoiler]The correct answer must be E![/spoiler]

Again, keep your negations as slight as possible. For many answer choices, a complete reversal would break the argument, even if the answer wasn't a good assumption choice. The example would be to

BREAK (D) "Top managers use intuitive reasoning in making NONE of their decisions." (a complete and total negation of "the majority")

Well, now what have we done. If we go this far (rather than the slight negation above), then we have made a premise false. How could Top managers use intuition more than anyone if they NEVER use it!?! So breaking this choice actually DID break the argument, but ONLY because I took it too far!! So practice using LEN on questions you already know the answer to for practice. You want to start finding the key places/words/phrases to bend:
  • "majority" becomes "some"
    "more than" becomes "the same as"
    "always" becomes "most of the time" rather than "never" (too far)
    "never" becomes "once" or "occasionally" rather than "always" (too far)
    "will" becomes "might"
    "will not" becomes "might not"
    etc...
I hope this gives you yet another tool in your arsenal to help you understand and deal with these tricky assumption questions!

:)
Whit
Whitney Garner
GMAT Instructor & Instructor Developer
Manhattan Prep

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Math is a lot like love - a simple idea that can easily get complicated :)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

by [email protected] » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:27 am
I got the answer as B and its correct!!!
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.