Zanco's failure

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

Zanco's failure

by simone88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:23 am
It is mistaken to attribute Zanco's failure; to the publicity about the supposedly inhuman working conditions~in the foreign factories that furnish Zanco with many of its parts. Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds (conclusion). After all, plenty of other companies are supplied by factories with working conditions just as bad as those in Zanco's suppliers, and the public does not hesitate to buy their products.

The argument in the passage is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) People are unlikely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.
(B) People who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers are aware of those conditions.
(C) The working conditions in the factories that supply Zanco with parts are not as bad as has been claimed.
(D) Zanco's sales did not dip sharply after the poor working conditions in its suppliers' factories became known.
(E) The poor quality of Zanco's products is not a result of the working conditions in the foreign factories where its parts are manufactured.

OA after some discussion

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:11 am
I would like to know if the two followings could be assumptions of the author:
[spoiler]
1) people will never let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase
2) people who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers will let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase in the same way as those who patronize Zanco
[/spoiler]

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:17 am
simone88 wrote:It is mistaken to attribute Zanco's failure to the publicity about the supposedly inhumane working conditions in the foreign factories that furnish Zanco with many of its parts. Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds. After all, plenty of other companies are supplied by factories with working conditions just as bad as those in Zanco's suppliers, and the public does not hesitate to buy their products.

The argument in the passage is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) People are unlikely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.
(B) People who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers are aware of those conditions.
(C) The working conditions in the factories that supply Zanco with parts are not as bad as has been claimed.
(D) Zanco's sales did not dip sharply after the poor working conditions in its suppliers' factories became known.
(E) The poor quality of Zanco's products is not a result of the working conditions in the foreign factories where its parts are manufactured.
Hi!

An assumption is something that MUST be true in order for the conclusion to follow logically from the evidence. In other words, a conclusion is a missing but necessary piece of evidence.

The classic way to identify an assumption is to look for a disconnect, i.e. mismatched terms. This method will always work (assuming you can find the disconnect!). However, certain classic argument types appear over and over on the exam and your ability to recognize these common patterns can give you a huge edge over your competition.

One of those classic argument structures is representativeness. Such an argument uses a sample, survey, experiment, example, analogy, poll or statistics to draw a conclusion. In these arguments, the author always assumes that the subject of the evidence is representative of the subject in the conclusion.

In this argument, the author draws her conclusion about Zanco based on what's true of other companies. In order to do so, the author must assume that there are no relevant differences between Zanco and the companies in the evidence.

Our prediction: the correct answer will either say that those companies are representative OR will eliminate a way in which they could be unrepresentative.

With that prediction in mind, (B) jumps out as correct. We know from the stimulus that Zanco's inhumane conditions have been publicized; in order for the companies in the evidence to be representative, their conditions must also be publicly known.

A useful tool on assumption questions is Kaplan's Denial Test. If you want to double check an answer choice, ask yourself "what would happen to the argument if the opposite of this choice were true?" Let's apply the Denial Test to choice (B):

(anti-B) The customers of the companies in the evidence are NOT aware of the inhumane conditions there.

Well, if the customers aren't aware of the inhumane conditions, how are those situations comparable to Zanco's? Answer: they're NOT. Since the denial of (B) would completely wreck the argument, (B) is a necessary assumption.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:23 am
simone88 wrote:I would like to know if the two followings could be assumptions of the author:

1) people will never let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase
2) people who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers will let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase in the same way as those who patronize Zanco
As noted above, an assumption is something that MUST be true in order for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. Accordingly, the strength of an assumption must match the strength of the argument.

For this reason, avoid EXTREME answers on assumption questions. For this argument to hold, does it HAVE TO BE TRUE that people will NEVER patronize companies with inhumane working conditions? NO - it just needs to be true for the examples given.

So, while your first statement would be a good STRENGTHENER, it's not an assumption.

Your second statement, on the other hand, is specific to the companies relevant to this argument and does, in fact, have to be true for the conclusion to hold. Let's check it against Kaplan's Denial Test:

(anti-2): people who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers will NOT let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase in the same way as those who patronize Zanco.

Well, if customers of those other companies don't care about moral considerations in the same way as do Zanco's customers, then how are those other companies relevant? Answer: they're NOT, which makes the argument fall apart.

Since the denial of (2) blows up the argument, (2) is a necessary assumption.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:06 am
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: For this reason, avoid EXTREME answers on assumption questions. For this argument to hold, does it HAVE TO BE TRUE that people will NEVER patronize companies with inhumane working conditions? NO - it just needs to be true for the examples given.

So, while your first statement would be a good STRENGTHENER, it's not an assumption.
well you are right: it strenghtens but is not an assumption of the answer (is this statement correct as a gmat SC?).
But then the statement
3)" people who patronize Zanco will never let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase"
is an assumption?
let's try to reason in your way:
anti 3)"there is some person who patronizes Zanco that will let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase"
so the conclusion that the failure of Zanco does not depend in any way from the bad publicity is weakened because some people could have not purchased Zanco's products whereas otherwise he would have. So 3) has to be an assumption. Is it right so far?
Stuart Kovinsky wrote:
Since the denial of (2) blows up the argument, (2) is a necessary assumption.
Well I'm glad that I found an alternative assumption correctly :D

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:21 am
simone88 wrote: But then the statement
3)" people who patronize Zanco will never let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase"
is an assumption?
let's try to reason in your way:
anti 3)"there is some person who patronizes Zanco that will let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase"
so the conclusion that the failure of Zanco does not depend in any way from the bad publicity is weakened because some people could have not purchased Zanco's products whereas otherwise he would have. So 3) has to be an assumption. Is it right so far?
Hi again!

Your denial of (3) is spot on (some people forget that the opposite of "all don't" is "at least one does"), but I disagree that the denial actually weakens the argument.

Just because 1 person does, in fact, use moral considerations doesn't make us believe that Zanco failed because of the bad publicity - what if 1 person did use moral considerations but Zanco's other 10 million customers didn't?

The conclusion of the original isn't that "the failure of Zanco does not depend in any way from the bad publicity" - it's that "Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds".
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:29 pm
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: Your denial of (3) is spot on (some people forget that the opposite of "all don't" is "at least one does"), but I disagree that the denial actually weakens the argument.
Yeah... I have a degree in mathematics, so I am better at creating denials then at weakening arguments ;)
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: The conclusion of the original isn't that "the failure of Zanco does not depend in any way from the bad publicity" - it's that "Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds".
You are right: well, I want to stress you with the last question and then I let you live in peace :D
consider

4)people who patronize Zanco aren't likely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase"

does this has to be an assumption? If no 4) then people who patronize Zanco are likely... so this weakens the conclusion that Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds because it can be actually the case that Zanco's customers are boicotting it!

P.S: the reason why I set up my mind on "will never" rather than "aren't likely" is that in the Kaplan's explanation there was written "even if people are likely to let moral considerations affect what products to purchase, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that people didn't do this in the case of Zanco", but I thought that he was saying that because there was written unlikely rather than will never and not that the answer choise wasn't pointing to people who patronize Zanco

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:53 pm
simone88 wrote:Well, I want to stress you with the last question and then I let you live in peace :D

consider:

4)people who patronize Zanco aren't likely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.

does this has to be an assumption? If no 4) then people who patronize Zanco are likely... so this weakens the conclusion that Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds because it can be actually the case that Zanco's customers are boicotting it!

P.S: the reason why I set up my mind on "will never" rather than "aren't likely" is that in the Kaplan's explanation there was written "even if people are likely to let moral considerations affect what products to purchase, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that people didn't do this in the case of Zanco", but I thought that he was saying that because there was written unlikely rather than will never and not that the answer choise wasn't pointing to people who patronize Zanco
If you add the "who patronize Zanco aren't likely" as you have, then that answer would definitely be a strengthener, since it's more evidence to support the conclusion.

However, a strengthener isn't necessarily an assumption; for that same reason, if the denial of your choice weakens, then that choice strengthens, but isn't necessarily an assumption.

Does it HAVE TO be true that people who patronize Zanco aren't likely to care about the inhumanity? NO - it's possible that they do care, but that the boycott is still due to defects in the product. (For example, it's possible that the defects are so dangerous that the safety issue is the sole reason for the boycott, even if people worry about moral issues too.)

Great questions!
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:01 pm
Ok, in summary, with the denial of 4) we would know that the moral boicotting would be a concrete possibility but we wouldn't be still able to chose between that and the defects in products. So 4) itself strenghtens but doesn't have to be true.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:00 am
Thanked: 2 times

by simone88 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:02 pm
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: Great questions!
thanks!

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:24 am

by trgtgmat2013 » Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:11 am
Hi Stuart,

Can you explain me for each option using the negation technique??



Thanks in advance

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:39 pm

by soudeh » Thu May 11, 2017 5:45 pm
Hi

could you explain me why A is wrong? it is more general than B as in B we see people are aware and so don't care , in A we see people don't care about moral condition so it doesn't effect on their purchase....
why it is wrong?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri May 12, 2017 9:52 am
soudeh wrote:Hi

It is mistaken to attribute Zanco's failure to the publicity about the supposedly inhumane working conditions in the foreign factories that furnish Zanco with many of its parts. Zanco's failure has more to do with defects in its products than with any boycott on moral grounds. After all, plenty of other companies are supplied by factories with working conditions just as bad as those in Zanco's suppliers, and the public does not hesitate to buy their products.

The argument in the passage is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) People are unlikely to let moral considerations affect what products they decide to purchase.
(B) People who patronize companies supplied by factories where working conditions are as bad as those of Zanco's suppliers are aware of those conditions.
(C) The working conditions in the factories that supply Zanco with parts are not as bad as has been claimed.
(D) Zanco's sales did not dip sharply after the poor working conditions in its suppliers' factories became known.
(E) The poor quality of Zanco's products is not a result of the working conditions in the foreign factories where its parts are manufactured.

could you explain me why A is wrong? it is more general than B as in B we see people are aware and so don't care , in A we see people don't care about moral condition so it doesn't effect on their purchase....
why it is wrong?
Just because people purchase products from a company with poor working conditions doesn't mean that people don't care about moral considerations. It might mean that they don't know about the bad conditions. (I care about moral considerations. Unfortunately, it wouldn't shock me to learn that something I've purchased at some point was manufactured under less than ideal conditions. This is likely true for most consumers.)
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

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