Critical Reasoning

In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades. The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.


The reasoning above assumes which one of the following?

All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable options.

There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.

There has not been a corresponding increase in the number of professional companies devoted to other performing arts.

The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades.

The 45 most recently founded opera companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.

Always look for the most direct link in logic. Here they are describing how more companies means there is a greater interest.

A) It doesn't matter if they are viable
B) Correct. If there were more than 45 companies that closed there would be no reason to think that public interest in increasing.
C) We don't care about other performing arts
D) Audience size is not important
E) The reason for them forming is not important

How can B be the assumption. This is not a weakening Q. E sounds like the assumption here. Can somone pls clarify this.

We are not weakening with B. If more companies closed than opened, this argument fails.

E- an assumption in the GMAT is something that "must be true" That is not the case with this answer.

I wrote a very popular article on this question. Here is the link to the article. https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2012/06/ ... -an-expert

I have also excerpted just the part that explains this question and I am including that portion here:

"Remember that the correct answer to an assumption question - very much like the correct answer to an inference question - cannot provide you with completely new information. This means that choice A is eliminated right off the bat. It would certainly strengthen our argument to know that ALL if the professional opera companies are commercially viable, but this not necessary and it is new information. We are relying on the fact that 45 companies were established not that they all made money.

Choice C is also completely new information and is also not necessary. Why would an increase in interest in the other performing arts mean that there cannot be an explosion of interest in Opera? Choice D is tempting and is a very nice strengthen answer. But is also does not point out an unexpected flaw in our logic. Choice D brings new information that the average size of the audience is increasing. It would be great to know this but the argument is relying on the evidence of 45 companies being founded and that is where the unexpected flaw needs to come from. So choice D is out.

That leaves choices B and E. At this point you can certainly decide to use the Assumption Negation Technique to negate these two answers, both of which mention the 45 companies that were recently founded. The founding of those companies is our evidence so either of these answer choices might be correct.

However, before you negate these choices why not apply the "infomercial test?" Which of these answer choices points out a legitimate, if unexpected, flaw in the argument and then immediately corrects it? The answer is choice B.

You see, in somewhat complicated language, choice B points out the possibility that 45 or more opera companies "ceased operations" in the last 30 years. If this were true then the evidence that 45 companies were founded in the last 30 years suddenly becomes very weak. Is there really an explosion of interest in opera if more companies went out of business than were founded? So choice B gets you very worried that you do not have a good argument here. But like any good infomercial it then reassures you. It states that "There were fewer than 45 companies..." that ceased operations. So, no need to worry. The flaw that you were not thinking of, the possibility that more than 45 companies went out of business was mentioned and then protected against. This is the way that the correct answers to assumption questions operate.

Why is choice E not correct? Simple, this argument does not rely on the 45 companies being founded for any particular reason. It simply relies on the fact that they were founded. In other words the evidence is about an increased number of opera companies not about enthusiasm on the part of the audience. This answer choice actually provides new information and not an unexpected flaw in this argument. It fails the "infomercial test."



Hope it helps!!

David