## Unable to identify assumption of this GMATPrep Question

##### This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Thanked: 4 times

### Unable to identify assumption of this GMATPrep Question

by joshi.komal » Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:18 pm
Hi Folks,

I am unable to understand this CR question on the GMAT Test Prep. I would highly appreciate if someone could throw some light on what should be the general strategy for attacking such types of questions.

Thanks
Komal
Attachments

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
by moledude » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:56 pm
Sharon is calculating and basing her claim on statistics that on average (blah blah blah), assuming (and also ignoring the fact) that unemployment can often occur more frequently in certain geographical regions in the country, instead of "spreading out" all over.

Does this make sense? I hope this helps.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 195
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Thanked: 10 times
by sankruth » Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:09 am
moledude wrote:unemployment can often occur more frequently in certain geographical regions in the country, instead of "spreading out" all over.

Does this make sense? I hope this helps.
The assumption Sharon makes is that unemployment cannot occur in geographically isolated areas.

I would rate this as not one of the best GMAt arguments, though it is a from the OG! I will give my explanations later but here is how I arrived at the answer.

I feel that the only way to solve this question is to find the answer using Process of Elimination.

Sharon reckons that unpolyment is about 5% (1 in 20). So, if anyone knows 50 workers they will also know 1 or more people who are unemployed.

C looks tempting but since the question is asking for an assumption the Sharon makes, we must ignore Roland's argument. Also Sharon's argument only refers to how many unemployed people will someone know not what proportion of people out of the total population that will know someone unemployed.

D, similar to C refers to Rolands argument and hence is not relevant.

E refers to fear that is created by knowing statistics of unemployed, which is irrelevant.

A Sounds good but it fails the negation test. Even if the normal levels are exceeded, still someone who knows 50 people will know 1 or more people who are likely to be unemployed. So it is not a critical to the argument.

Hence B, as no other answer is good enough. However I have a problem with B too.

Imagine a community with 15% unemployment but the overall unemployement of the country can still be 5%. In other words other commnuties with less than 5% unemployment compensate the 15% unemployment of one community.

So, if a person lives within the community with say 1% unemployment the likelihood is that he may not know a single person who is unemployed. But if all communities have the same 5% then the statistics will be true across all communities.

My question is, it is very much possible that a person knows people from other communities (with greater than 5% unemployment) and therefore the stats still hold true even if unemployment is concentrated in geographically isolated segments.

Sorry for this long-winded post. I hope I have got my point across. Im keen to hear others opinion on this.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: 22 May 2008
Thanked: 3 times
by EricLien9122 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:33 pm
Can anyone comment on this question?

I still don't see why B is the correct answer. I appreciate your help.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 280
Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610
by Jatinder » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:05 pm
sankruth wrote:
moledude wrote:unemployment can often occur more frequently in certain geographical regions in the country, instead of "spreading out" all over.

Does this make sense? I hope this helps.
The assumption Sharon makes is that unemployment cannot occur in geographically isolated areas.

I would rate this as not one of the best GMAt arguments, though it is a from the OG! I will give my explanations later but here is how I arrived at the answer.

I feel that the only way to solve this question is to find the answer using Process of Elimination.

Sharon reckons that unpolyment is about 5% (1 in 20). So, if anyone knows 50 workers they will also know 1 or more people who are unemployed.

C looks tempting but since the question is asking for an assumption the Sharon makes, we must ignore Roland's argument. Also Sharon's argument only refers to how many unemployed people will someone know not what proportion of people out of the total population that will know someone unemployed.

D, similar to C refers to Rolands argument and hence is not relevant.

E refers to fear that is created by knowing statistics of unemployed, which is irrelevant.

A Sounds good but it fails the negation test. Even if the normal levels are exceeded, still someone who knows 50 people will know 1 or more people who are likely to be unemployed. So it is not a critical to the argument.

Hence B, as no other answer is good enough. However I have a problem with B too.

Imagine a community with 15% unemployment but the overall unemployement of the country can still be 5%. In other words other commnuties with less than 5% unemployment compensate the 15% unemployment of one community.

So, if a person lives within the community with say 1% unemployment the likelihood is that he may not know a single person who is unemployed. But if all communities have the same 5% then the statistics will be true across all communities.

My question is, it is very much possible that a person knows people from other communities (with greater than 5% unemployment) and therefore the stats still hold true even if unemployment is concentrated in geographically isolated segments.

Sorry for this long-winded post. I hope I have got my point across. Im keen to hear others opinion on this.
Point taken.
But B says not Normally concentrated.
--Normally is the keyword

Moreover, some GMAT assumption are framed this way only,
i.e the correct answer of some assumption question support the arguement rather than being necessary to the arguement.

Try this question:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-11e-q57-h ... 21037.html
:
this is more of a assumption question rather than inference.
Keep flying

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: 22 May 2008
Thanked: 3 times
by EricLien9122 » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:16 pm
I actually stuck between A and B then crossed out B.

I actually thought B weakened the argument, because if it's not normally concentrated, then Shanon can't make a generalized statement?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
GMAT Score:690
by dileepsinha » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:53 am
A- normal moderate level of unemployment is 5%...hence it will be incorrect to say..that "RARELY exceed"
C: the number can not ALWAYS be higher than 90%; there could be someone who knows only the persons who are employed for some reason or the other...maybe he is a loner and he knows only those who are employed
B: if Sharon says "if a person knows 50 people....now a person can know other people only if they are not geographically isolated....

Hence B

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:693 members
GMAT Score:780
by Stacey Koprince » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:14 pm
I received a PM asking me to respond, specifically to explain why B is correct.

R: 90% of people know someone who is unemployed
S: BUT normal 5% unemployment = 1 out of 20 unemployed. So if you know 50 workers (more than 20), chances are good that at least 1 is unemployed.

What is S's assumption?

Correct answer will be something that Sharon MUST be assuming in order to reach her conclusion (that if you know 50 workers, chances are at least 1 is unemployed).

B Sharon assumes that unemployment is not geographically concentrated / isolated.

Here's an example of "geographically concentrated / isolated": 9% of state A is unemployed while only 1% of state B is unemployed, so the overall average is 5%, but you're a lot more likely to know someone who's unemployed if you live in state A, because more people are unemployed there than in state B.

If that were the case, then Sharon couldn't conclude that anyone who knows 50 workers will know an unemployed worker, because that wouldn't be the case if we're talking about state B - there, only 1 out of 100 workers is unemployed. If Sharon assumes, however, that a 5% unemployment rate in the country means that any given state or city also has approx. 5% unemployment, then she can draw the conclusion that she draws.

Think about this: the current US unemployment rate is 6.5%. But if you live in Michigan (9.3%), you're a lot more likely to know someone who's unemployed than if you live in Wyoming (3.3%). Make sense?
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!