BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Official Question Doubt

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:53 am
Location: United States
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:5 members

Official Question Doubt

by tanvis1120 » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:02 am
Hi,

In the attached problem, why can't we assume if 1 is a number in the set, then x-3 = 1; x = 4?
Hence the set can be {4, 1, -2, -5, -8...}. Shouldn't there be an option with I and III.
I know,assuming x=1 is the first thing anyone would do. But the former assumption confused me.

Answer Options:
a. I only b. II only c. II only d. I and II only e. II and III only

OA is C
Attachments
Untitled.png
Top
Source: — Problem Solving |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:06 am
For a certain set of numbers, if x is in the set, then x-3 is also in the set. If the number 1 is in the set, which of the following must also be in the set.
I. 4
II. -1
III.-5

A. I only
B. II only
C. III only
D. I and II only
E. II and III only

In the attached problem, why can't we assume if 1 is a number in the set, then x-3 = 1; x = 4?
You have reversed the order of the if-then statement. It's not uncommon for people to do this.

The if-then statement here is "If if x is in the set, then x-3 is also in the set"
Reversing the statement (to get "if x-3 is in the set, then x is also in the set") is not logically sound.

Here's an example why.

Let's say: If an animal is a rabbit, then that animal has ears.
Can we then conclude that if an animal has ears then that animal is a rabbit? No.

So, in our question, the existence of x in the set guarantees the existence of x-3 in the set.
However, it is not necessarily the case that the existence of x-3 in the set guarantees the existence of x in the set.


I hope that helps.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:32 am
Another analogy might look like this:

Sarah is shy, so if she goes to a party, her sister has to come, too.
So we know that if Sarah goes, then her sister will go.

Does it have to follow that if her sister goes, Sarah will go? Not necessarily. Maybe her sister isn't shy and doesn't mind going by herself.

Only if the statement said "if either sister goes, then the other one will go, too" should we assume both.

Likewise in this question, only if it says "if x is in the set, x-3 is in the set and vice versa" would we assume that 4 has to be in the set. Maybe 1 was the starting point (like a cascading/domino effect), and the set is only infinite in one direction.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:30 pm
Hi tanvis1120,

The question that you posted emphasizes a concept called "formal logic". It's an idea that's common on the LSAT but appears only in rare circumstances on the GMAT. Chances are good that you won't see it at all when you take the Official GMAT, so you shouldn't worry too much about it.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1