Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livest

[guerrero]

Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of the adults who live in Idaho and indicated support for a recently proposed bill via an online poll, however, approximately 12% own livestock. Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock.

The conclusion drawn above is based on the assumption that _____________.

A)Adults who own livestock were less likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock.

B)The number of adults who indicated support for the bill via the online poll was greater than the number of adults who own livestock.

C)At least some of the adults in Idaho who own livestock responded more than once to the online poll.

D)Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.

E)Adults who own livestock in Idaho are more likely to indicate support for proposed legislation than are adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock.

OA D

[theCodeToGMAT]

Is the Answer [spoiler][E][/spoiler]?

[theCodeToGMAT]

Is the Answer [spoiler][E][/spoiler]?

[vinay1983]

I feel it is D, not sure though!

[theCodeToGMAT]

I feel it is D, not sure though!

It cannot be [D]

Since,

Conclusion: Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock

D. Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.

----> Question Stem doesn't say that All the Adults who have livestock participated. So, we cannot assume that "adults who do not indicate support" only consist of people who doesn't own Livestock

[[email protected]]

Hi All,

I'm going to give you all a hint and let you play around with this question some more: You can actually use a Quant tactic to solve this CR. Try TESTing a value for the total number of people in Idaho and then figuring out all of the values. The correct answer has a minor problem in its wording, but if you ignore it (as the author of this question did), then you'll get this question correct.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

[ShalakaK]

IMO C

Either the adults who own livestock form large portion of the supporters or the adlts who are livestock owner responded more than once.

Also applying negtion will break the statement.

[lunarpower]

I received a private message about this thread.

What's interesting about this problem is that (D) is the only choice that has anything whatsoever to do with the conclusion of this argument. The question asks specifically about an assumption underlying the conclusion of the argument, so the correct answer choice needs to be related to the conclusion!

The conclusion takes a bunch of statistical data about responses to an online poll, and jumps to the conclusion that a certain group of people is more personally affected by the issue -- a line of thought that's not addressed at all by the data.
Therefore, we're definitely looking for an assumption that deals with being personally affected by the issue.
(A) No.
(B) No.
(C) No.
(D) Relevant.
(E) No.

Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of the adults who live in Idaho and indicated support for a recently proposed bill via an online poll, however, approximately 12% own livestock. Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock.

The conclusion drawn above is based on the assumption that _____________.

A)Adults who own livestock were less likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock.

B)The number of adults who indicated support for the bill via the online poll was greater than the number of adults who own livestock.

C)At least some of the adults in Idaho who own livestock responded more than once to the online poll.

D)Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.

E)Adults who own livestock in Idaho are more likely to indicate support for proposed legislation than are adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock.

OA to follow ..

[theCodeToGMAT]

Is the Answer [spoiler][E][/spoiler]?

I will try justify my Solution [E] using Quant...

Let:
PEOPLE, P = 1000
LIVESTOCK OWNER (5%), L = 50
NOn Livestock Owners LNO = 950
GROUP of SUPPORTED, S ==> (25 = 3(owners of livestock; 12%, SL) + 22 (non-owners, SNO)

Solving Method: Negation
To Prove: "adults who own livestock are LESS likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock".


[A] : Negated--> L more likely support than LNO. --> So, indicates that they might be getting affected the most.INCORRECT

(B) : Negated--> "S"25 < 50"L" --> Here, SL = 3 and SNO = 22; However originally the L was 50.. So only 3 are supporting out of 50... So affect is likely less.. as less people(3) are affected..47 are less affected POSSIBLY CORRECT

[C] : Negated--> L people responded.. so, they are likely to be affected.....INCORRECT

[D] : Negated--> "S"(SL=3) less likely to be affected than 975 other people (L=47) --- > 47 are more affect.....INCORRECT

[E] : Negated--> "L" are less likely to support than "adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock"--> the way i depict this phrase "adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock"is that it signifies LNO... --> POSSIBLY CORRECT

Possible Solutions & [E].
Comparing both...
B--> 47 less likely to be affect
5--> 50 are less to support-- so less affected..
Hence [E].

[lunarpower]

See, you can't do that here. There are no quantitative data for "affected by the legislation", so (D) can't be calculated in the first place.
Which is the whole point of this entire problem!

There are data for "responded in support of the legislation", but the entire reason for the existence of this problem is for you to recognize that this isn't the same thing as "affected by it".

[lunarpower]

If the point above is not 100% clear, consider just about any emotionally loaded political issue, e.g., abortion or the death penalty.

* Think about the group of people who would voice support for (or against) the legalization of abortion. Or the death penalty. Or whatever other issue.

* Now think about the group of people personally affected by these things. Clearly a very different (and much, much smaller) group of people. (Most people with strong feelings about the death penalty are not facing the death penalty, nor are their friends or family members.)

Same issue here.

[lunarpower]

Finally, a short and sweet bit of important advice:
If you have to plug numbers into a CR question, you're doing it wrong.

[vinay1983]

Ron! Can I write a descriptive prose in Shakespearean style about how I feel about seeing your answers. To the point, accurate, enlightening!

Aside: It was nice of you to explain it so easily. Such questions can be solved now using what you have said in the last post.

[theCodeToGMAT]

See, you can't do that here. There are no quantitative data for "affected by the legislation", so (D) can't be calculated in the first place.
Which is the whole point of this entire problem!

There are data for "responded in support of the legislation", but the entire reason for the existence of this problem is for you to recognize that this isn't the same thing as "affected by it".

Thanks Ron.. I misunderstood the question.. thanks for correcting me

[lunarpower]

Ron! Can I write a descriptive prose in Shakespearean style about how I feel about seeing your answers. To the point, accurate, enlightening!

Thanks.

Shakespeare didn't write much prose, though. Mostly poetry. (His prose is mostly ironic/comic -- so you might be implying that my answers aren't easy to read at all.)
|: