The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:30 am
VivianKerr wrote:@aspirant2011 The Prediction should match the correct answer choice as closely as possible. That is why it's important to write one down whenever possible. You write down a Prediction because it clarifies for you what you should look for in the answer choices.

Here, I got the Prediction by reversing the Assumption. The assumption was that the "virus would quickly spread" so that needs to be true in order for the Conclusion to be true ("trees should be cut down now"). Since it's a weaken question, we are looking for the opposite of that assumption. The opposite is that the "virus will NOT quickly spread". The part in the parentheses is just further elaboration which ties this assumption back to the conclusion.
Hi Vivian,

Just last one doubt i.e in case of weakening questions always prediction would come after reversing the assumption??????

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by rishijhawar » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:44 am
1) Vivian, your explanation on Assumption and Weaken questions were very helpful. But I am facing issues in using Negation technique in Assumption question. I referred to the link you posted, but still I couldn't crack a few Assumption questions. Is there any simpler way to understand Negation/Denial test?

2) May be if you can show me how to use either of these techniques in the following question, it might help me:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.
(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.
(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.
(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.
(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
OA C

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:09 am
rishijhawar wrote:
Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence. ---- we are not concerned about the strategies as the argument talks about susceptibilities through which strategy would be developed
(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.---- out of scope
(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities. --------- reverse this so that u get "All human sicknesses are not in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities." -------> now see from this negated argument u will find conclusion falls apart because whole argument says that based on susceptibility strategy would be found in order to cure all human sicknesses but in case if any sickness is not the result of genetic susceptibility then............
(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.
(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.----- out of scope
OA C

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:10 pm

by Kajiabeat » Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:10 am
Why D is not a weaken statement? though I get that E is the very best, but I'm still confused about the logic to eliminating D , is it not right or just not as good as E?

What I think is that D can also imply that the company don't need to care (because they don't think there's serious social impact) social impact of closing factory in Grenville because, Tasberg's factory can take care of the workers laid off from grenville factory.

Where am I wrong?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:57 am
Why D is not a weaken statement? though I get that E is the very best, but I'm still confused about the logic to eliminating D , is it not right or just not as good as E?

What I think is that D can also imply that the company don't need to care (because they don't think there's serious social impact) social impact of closing factory in Grenville because, Tasberg's factory can take care of the workers laid off from grenville factory.

Where am I wrong?
This is a WEAKEN question. Let's go back to our Prediction: Disruption = less profitability, OLEX not actually concerned w/social well-being.

If the T factory will just hire the G workers, this is a GOOD thing. But how does this fact WEAKEN an argument based on the notion that this disruption will lead to less $$, a BAD thing? If anything, it almost strengthens, since the workers will be taken care of long-term.

Remember that CR is not based on what YOU think (or what I think), or the logic of the premise. It is not an inference. It is based on the ARGUMENT. Don't compare answer choices until you have thoroughly broken down the premise. [/quote]
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:14 am
2) May be if you can show me how to use either of these techniques in the following question, it might help me:

Negation technique is designed to make these Q's simpler, so if it's confusing to you, then I would just focus on breaking down the passages & reversing the assumption to make a prediction for "weaken" Q's:

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

CONCLUSION: People who follow strategies will NEVER get sick.
EVIDENCE: Strategies can counteract the genetic susceptibilities.

Evidence + Assumption = Conclusion

What needs to be true so that people will NEVER get sick b/c the strategies can COUNTERACT the genes?

Logically, the "counteraction" of these genes needs to prevent people from getting sick. We know the correct answer must make the conclusion stronger and must link the genetic susceptibility with sickness. C does this very clearly.


The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.
(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.
(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities.
(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.
(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.
OA C
[/quote]
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)