Critical Reasoning

Everyone who has graduated from TopNotch High School has an intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 120. Most students with an IQ of over 120 and all students with an IQ of over 150 who apply to one or more Ivy League universities are accepted to at least one of them.

The statements above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions?
A Every graduate of TopNotch High School with an IQ of 150 has been accepted to at least one Ivy-League school.

B If a person is a high-school graduate and has an IQ of less than 100, he or she could not have been a student at TopNotch High School.

C If a person has an IQ of 130 and is attending an Ivy-League school, it is possible for him or her to have graduated from TopNotch High School.

D At least one graduate from TopNotch high school who has applied to at least one Ivy-League university has been accepted to one of them.

E If a high-school graduate has an IQ of 150 and is not attending an Ivy-League school, then he or she did not apply to one of them.

C nfused between D and C

got to be C


because argument is talking only about a specific set of the students who have scored either over 120 or over 150 ...

D takes into consideration each and every student...which may or may not be the case...

whats the problem with (B) . Please explain

IMO B

B has couple of outside scope problems ...

B- If a person is a high-school graduate and has an IQ of less than 100, he or she could not have been a student at TopNotch High School.

1. The option is bringing info about the high-school graduate which is no where mentioned in the argument

2. loosing the link between the IQ and admission to Ivy League universities

3. while argument talks only about the students who have id over 120 or over 150 ...this option is talking about students who have is less than 100 ...

hope this helps..

IMO - C

Hi,

I see the problem in B as different from the ones cited by ashwani. It says if a high school graduate has less than 100 IQ he she could not have been a student at TopNotch, which may not be the case if a less than 100IQ was a student at TopNotch but did not graduate from TopNotch. The argument only says TopNotch graduates have an IQ of more than 120 but not every student at TopNotch has over 120IQ.

Hope the explanation is clear
cheers

The answer has to be C; B is out of scope, and D is a trap; D assumes that somebody from TopNotch High School has applied to an Ivy League school.

C should be the ans
between C and D

C: cant deny such a possibilit
D: It is quite possible that some batch in IVy league had no representation for top-notch...it happens all the time.An eligibiliti doesnot guarantee an admission.

Can someone please post answers as to why each answer option is right / wrong ?

below thread gives the answer
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/eve ... t3461.html

I too agree that C is the right answer here.

Here is my take on it:

One very important thing to remember here is that two of the answer choices puts an Inference and fools you for conclusion. Remember that if you are talking about conclusion in an argument, then it should contain information from all the stated premises/sub-conclusion. If you are concluding or taking out information from just a single premise, then its an INFERENCE. Also, if there are three premises or more and if you are concluding something from two premises, then it is a SUB-CONCLUSION which is another premise and not an INFERENCE. If you gather information from all premises/sub-conclusion, then you can say that you have found out a logical CONCLUSION to an argument.

A. Every graduate of TopNotch High School with an IQ of 150 has been accepted to at least one Ivy-League school.

This is wrong because of a scope applied in the stimulus of "who apply". Note this and you can eliminate this one. Is it possible according to the stimuli to get accepted without applying? No. So this conclusion is right if the "who applied" factor comes because it does include info from both the premises.

B. If a person is a high-school graduate and has an IQ of less than 100, he or she could not have been a student at TopNotch High School.
Most of them including me had a confusion as to why answers such as B is wrong unless I came to know the above-mentioned fundamental concept. Frankly speaking, only B and C are close to becoming conclusion. Rest all can be intelligently and alertly eliminated. This answer is what is INFERENCE TRAP. Does it include the second premise? No. Yes one more thing is that some may argue that there is something known as FILLER PREMISE. Yes there is. But one must intelligently identify FILLER PREMISE. Something like "Top Notch is located in Seychelles". If you find something which is unrelated to others can be called as FILLER PREMISE but certainly the second premise here cannot be termed as FILLER PREMISE. Hope that explains why this is wrong and it is good for MUST BE TRUE if we remember the INFERENCE TRAP Concept above.

C. If a person has an IQ of 130 and is attending an Ivy-League school, it is possible for him or her to have graduated from TopNotch High School.
This certainly has info from both the mentioned premises. And can you find any fault? Atleast I dont. But keep it as Contender (Method by the ALMA MATER Powerscore).

D.At least one graduate from TopNotch high school who has applied to at least one Ivy-League university has been accepted to one of them.
Too much of at least,hmm. Rest all is good. Take a boundary case. Atleast can mean only one. Now see this.
"One graduate from TN School who has applied to one IvY has been accepted by one of them. " Stimuli says "One graduate from Top Notch indicates IQ>120. Most of them >120 and all 150 who applied to one or more is accepted by atleast one of them" . Now that one person can be amongst those who have > 120 but still not accepted. Most does not mean all. This is where it can get eliminated. The second part is possible because in the stimuli it is mentioned one or more and can be accepted by atleast one of them. It is possible that applied to one and selected by the same acc to the stimuli.

E.If a high-school graduate has an IQ of 150 and is not attending an Ivy-League school, then he or she did not apply to one of them.

Sounds right doesn't it. Yes its right. But is it a CONCLUSION or an INFERENCE. INFERENCE TRAP AGAIN.

One Recommendation to All GMATTers: Not a representative of Powerscore, but do go through Powerscore CR Bible before your GMAT. Will do wonders.

excellent explanation

nileshdalvi wrote:I too agree that C is the right answer here.

Here is my take on it:

One very important thing to remember here is that two of the answer choices puts an Inference and fools you for conclusion. Remember that if you are talking about conclusion in an argument, then it should contain information from all the stated premises/sub-conclusion. If you are concluding or taking out information from just a single premise, then its an INFERENCE. Also, if there are three premises or more and if you are concluding something from two premises, then it is a SUB-CONCLUSION which is another premise and not an INFERENCE. If you gather information from all premises/sub-conclusion, then you can say that you have found out a logical CONCLUSION to an argument.

A. Every graduate of TopNotch High School with an IQ of 150 has been accepted to at least one Ivy-League school.

This is wrong because of a scope applied in the stimulus of "who apply". Note this and you can eliminate this one. Is it possible according to the stimuli to get accepted without applying? No. So this conclusion is right if the "who applied" factor comes because it does include info from both the premises.

B. If a person is a high-school graduate and has an IQ of less than 100, he or she could not have been a student at TopNotch High School.
Most of them including me had a confusion as to why answers such as B is wrong unless I came to know the above-mentioned fundamental concept. Frankly speaking, only B and C are close to becoming conclusion. Rest all can be intelligently and alertly eliminated. This answer is what is INFERENCE TRAP. Does it include the second premise? No. Yes one more thing is that some may argue that there is something known as FILLER PREMISE. Yes there is. But one must intelligently identify FILLER PREMISE. Something like "Top Notch is located in Seychelles". If you find something which is unrelated to others can be called as FILLER PREMISE but certainly the second premise here cannot be termed as FILLER PREMISE. Hope that explains why this is wrong and it is good for MUST BE TRUE if we remember the INFERENCE TRAP Concept above.

C. If a person has an IQ of 130 and is attending an Ivy-League school, it is possible for him or her to have graduated from TopNotch High School.
This certainly has info from both the mentioned premises. And can you find any fault? Atleast I dont. But keep it as Contender (Method by the ALMA MATER Powerscore).

D.At least one graduate from TopNotch high school who has applied to at least one Ivy-League university has been accepted to one of them.
Too much of at least,hmm. Rest all is good. Take a boundary case. Atleast can mean only one. Now see this.
"One graduate from TN School who has applied to one IvY has been accepted by one of them. " Stimuli says "One graduate from Top Notch indicates IQ>120. Most of them >120 and all 150 who applied to one or more is accepted by atleast one of them" . Now that one person can be amongst those who have > 120 but still not accepted. Most does not mean all. This is where it can get eliminated. The second part is possible because in the stimuli it is mentioned one or more and can be accepted by atleast one of them. It is possible that applied to one and selected by the same acc to the stimuli.

E.If a high-school graduate has an IQ of 150 and is not attending an Ivy-League school, then he or she did not apply to one of them.

Sounds right doesn't it. Yes its right. But is it a CONCLUSION or an INFERENCE. INFERENCE TRAP AGAIN.

One Recommendation to All GMATTers: Not a representative of Powerscore, but do go through Powerscore CR Bible before your GMAT. Will do wonders.

I believe the answer should be C