another MGMAT CAT Googly

[mundasingh123]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

B strengthens the argument indirectly by eliminating a possible weakener. The argument states that Domingo labeled all of the instances the orchestra played out of tune as such. Let's take an extreme position - A potential weakener would be if Domingo simply labeled ALL of the 100 selections as out of tune - this (extreme) circumstance would still satisfy the argument's premises, since the argument leaves that part - Domingo's performance in the correct selections - open to interpretation. But in such a case it would be wrong to say that he is a prodigy - as he is not able differentiate between an out of tune instrument and a tuned one. B eliminates this possibility, thereby strengthening that conclusion that Domingo's success was indeed due to his ability to detect an instrument out of tune and differentiate it from one that is.

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

Read https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/09/ ... strengthen

[sl750]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

B says, he DID NOT label any of the orchestra's in-tune performance as out of tune, or that he was able to correctly identify only those instruments that were out of tune

You have quoted the opposite of what is given in choice B

"talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune"

[mundasingh123]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

Read https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/09/ ... strengthen

Hi Geva doesnt C strengthen the conclusion similarly .
Someone wanting to weaken the argument may say that the performers were already known to play out of tune , that is , the performers already had a bad record of playing music that was pout of tune . Doesnt C strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the weakener .

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

Read https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/09/ ... strengthen

Hi Geva doesnt C strengthen the conclusion similarly .
Someone wanting to weaken the argument may say that the performers were already known to play out of tune , that is , the performers already had a bad record of playing music that was pout of tune . Doesnt C strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the weakener .

How does the fact that the performers were already known to play out of tune weaken the conclusion that Domingo could recognize that they play out of tune during the test?

[theforrestgump]

Geva,

Could you explain why the other choices are wrong?

I vouched for (D) because the claim is that, Domingo is a prodigy that could recognize any single instrument in his orchestra that is a bit out of tune.

Doesn't (D) support this by saying yes, the instruments were played just a bit out of tune and Domingo recognized it? I mean if an instrument was played very much out of tune you wouldn't need a prodigy to recognize it.

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

Geva,

Could you explain why the other choices are wrong?

Could you explain why they are right?

[theforrestgump]

Geva,

Could you explain why the other choices are wrong?

Could you explain why they are right?

I vouched for (D) because the claim is that, Domingo is a prodigy that could recognize any single instrument in his orchestra that is a bit out of tune.

Doesn't (D) support this by saying yes, the instruments were played just a bit out of tune and Domingo recognized it? I mean if an instrument was played very much out of tune you wouldn't need a prodigy to recognize it.

(A) if the orchestra was not arranged in the traditional manner then maybe that is what helped Domingo identify the instrument with the wrong tune.
(B) if Domingo had mistakenly labeled a right tune as wrong then it goes to show that he can't actually recognize mistakes.
(C)If there was an amature playing in place of the experienced player, then ofcourse Domingo would know who would make the mistake always.
(D) Already mentioned why i chose this.
(E) Maybe because it was in an empty hall, it was this that helped Domingo identify the wrong instrument.

I found them all to strengthen
(im guessing some of the answer choices are "out of scope", but how can you tell which answers are out of scope when you can bring in new information or eliminate other possible causes not mentioned in the argument?)

[mundasingh123]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

Read https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/09/ ... strengthen

Hi Geva doesnt C strengthen the conclusion similarly .
Someone wanting to weaken the argument may say that the performers were already known to play out of tune , that is , the performers already had a bad record of playing music that was pout of tune . Doesnt C strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the weakener .

How does the fact that the performers were already known to play out of tune weaken the conclusion that Domingo could recognize that they play out of tune during the test?

Hi Geva , Thanks for the reply.
if Mr Mars were one one of the performers and were already infamous for playing out of tune and Domingo knew that Mr. Mars is performing , couldnt he point out Mr. Mars as the one who is playing out of tune

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

Geva,

Could you explain why the other choices are wrong?

Could you explain why they are right?

I vouched for (D) because the claim is that, Domingo is a prodigy that could recognize any single instrument in his orchestra that is a bit out of tune.

Doesn't (D) support this by saying yes, the instruments were played just a bit out of tune and Domingo recognized it? I mean if an instrument was played very much out of tune you wouldn't need a prodigy to recognize it.

1) The GMAT will never require you to know from your own knowledge whether half half-step below the true pitch is a large or small deviation - that alone tells you that this answer choice is suspect,as you lack the tools to decide whether this is is good, bad, or irrelevant. D can also go both ways, another sign of a problematic answer choice: if all the instruments were out of tune by exactly the same margin, then perhaps it was easier to recognize once Domingo caught on to the pattern, and this would then weaken the conclusion.




(A) if the orchestra was not arranged in the traditional manner then maybe that is what helped Domingo identify the instrument with the wrong tune.
We don't know the effects of a traditional Vs. non-traditional arrangements. There is simply not enough info to see whether this is relevant or not.

(B) if Domingo had mistakenly labeled a right tune as wrong then it goes to show that he can't actually recognize mistakes.
(C)If there was an amature playing in place of the experienced player, then ofcourse Domingo would know who would make the mistake always.
It doesn't matter whether a mistake is made by an amateur or a professional - a mistake is a mistake. Domingo should spot the mistake, nor not spot it. C simply doesn't tell you anything relevant to judging whether Domingo's feat is one of a true prodigy or not.
(D) Already mentioned why i chose this.
(E) Maybe because it was in an empty hall, it was this that helped Domingo identify the wrong instrument.
If that is true, then E weakens the conclusion that he's a prodigy, not strengthen. In any case, E said that the acoustics were different, not necessarily better, which again allows E to be interpreted as both a strengthener and a weakener - as I said, that's a sign that an answer choice is suspect.
I found them all to strengthen
(im guessing some of the answer choices are "out of scope", but how can you tell which answers are out of scope when you can bring in new information or eliminate other possible causes not mentioned in the argument?)

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

The young orchestral conductor Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy, able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune. In a recent test, an orchestra played a hundred selections from different well-known classical pieces; in approximately half of the selections, exactly one instrument would be played slightly out of tune. In every instance in which an instrument was played out of tune, Domingo pointed out that the orchestra was out of tune, and correctly identified the instrument at fault.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion of the argument above?
(A)During the test, the orchestra was arranged in a traditional arrangement, similar to the arrangement in which they would be seated in a classical concert.
(B)Domingo did not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
(C)Many of the musicians who intentionally played out of tune as part of the test have played perfectly in tune in every concert for the last ten years.
(D)The instruments played out of tune were all played at a pitch exactly one half-step lower than the true pitch.
(E)Because the test was performed in an empty concert hall, the acoustics of the concert hall differed somewhat from those of a concert hall populated by an audience.

According to the conclusion above
Sabado Domingo is a true prodigy because he is able to recognize when any single instrument in his orchestra is even a bit out of tune.
OA is B
B talks about those instances in which domingo mistakenly labelled some of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune.
But dont we go according to the definition of a prodigy given in the conclusion . A prodigy is someone who is able to make out an out of tune performance without fail . Going by this definition of a prodigy , a prodigy could also be a person who mistakenly labelled a performance as out of tune .Aren't we bringing outside information , that is our own general knowledge , to disqualify a person who mistakenly labels performances as out of tune .

Read https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/09/ ... strengthen

Hi Geva doesnt C strengthen the conclusion similarly .
Someone wanting to weaken the argument may say that the performers were already known to play out of tune , that is , the performers already had a bad record of playing music that was pout of tune . Doesnt C strengthen the conclusion by eliminating the weakener .

How does the fact that the performers were already known to play out of tune weaken the conclusion that Domingo could recognize that they play out of tune during the test?

Hi Geva , Thanks for the reply.
if Mr Mars were one one of the performers and were already infamous for playing out of tune and Domingo knew that Mr. Mars is performing , couldnt he point out Mr. Mars as the one who is playing out of tune

Yes, he probably could. How does this help strengthen the argument?

[mundasingh123]

Hi Geva Created a new post to prevent confusion
So C says that all the performers had a clean record , so isnt C eliminating a weakener . (The weakener that i spoke about in the previous post )

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

Hi Geva Created a new post to prevent confusion
So C says that all the performers had a clean record , so isnt C eliminating a weakener . (The weakener that i spoke about in the previous post )

First, C says that MANY of the musicians who played out of tune had clean records - not that ALL of them had a clean record. For C to be a real strengthener, it really would need to establish that the weakener it eliminates is indeed a threat. Domingo caught 50 false performances, so we think he's a prodigy. To weaken that, we would need to say that he didn't use his ears - he used his eyes, because he knew the false players. C would then need to at least say that MOST of the musicians (if not all) have played true in the past.

Also, there are just too many IFs here: IF these false musicians have been false before, and IF they have played with Domingo before, and IF he remembered them as false, then he stood a chance of getting 50 false performances right without being a prodigy.

[mundasingh123]

Hi Geva ,
The real problem that i am facing is that i dont know when to use lateral thinking and when not to .
Now
B which is the OA doesnt make it clear how important is it to not mistakenly label any of the orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune for a prodigy .
It doesnt make the link between being a prodigy and not labelling orchestra's in-tune performances as out of tune clear .
I am trying to find out the difference between your logic and mine.
You have eliminated the rest of the answers on the basis that we dont know really how the options are going to help the argument .
For example

1

) The GMAT will never require you to know from your own knowledge whether half half-step below the true pitch is a large or small deviation - that alone tells you that this answer choice is suspect,as you lack the tools to decide whether this is is good, bad, or irrelevant. D can also go both ways, another sign of a problematic answer choice: if all the instruments were out of tune by exactly the same margin, then perhaps it was easier to recognize once Domingo caught on to the pattern, and this would then weaken the conclusion.

(

A) if the orchestra was not arranged in the traditional manner then maybe that is what helped Domingo identify the instrument with the wrong tune.
We don't know the effects of a traditional Vs. non-traditional arrangements. There is simply not enough info to see whether this is relevant or not.

So just a general question
are we expected to think beyond the stimulus and the specific option . I mean are we expected to bring any other logic to these CRs . ie Logic based on our practical experience or our common sense ?