Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must

The best way to do this one is to diagram everything you're given in the problem

They tell you that if it doesn't increase by 10%, it will go bankrupt. this is diagrammed as:

(1) if (not)10% -> then bankrupt.

next it says if 10% is possible, then 20% is possible. this is diagrammed as:

10% possible -> then 20% possible

next, you should always look at the converse of statements, as that will usually be the key to unlocking the problem. the converse of this statement is:

(2) if 20% not possible -> 10% not possible

now you have everything you need. if you add equation 1 to the end of equation 2, you will see that E is true:

if 20% not possible ->10 % not possible -> then bankrupt

therefore, E is the answer.

I myself choose B,

but after reading your explanation; If I would have thought in reverse direction then I would have chosen E;

In b/w B and E. I'll go with B
because both of these stmts contradict each other.

I think bad question ...

Source please?

It's (E) by contrapositive. You have the implication "If a 10% increase is possible, then a 20% increase is possible." The contrapositive of that is "If a 20% increase isn't possible, then a 10% increase isn't possible." And we know as a given fact that if a 10% increase isn't possible, then the company is going bankrupt. Hence, (E).

(B) is wrong because it's an inverse relationship, which is not equivalent. A -> B does not mean that ~A -> ~B. Nowhere in the original statement does it say that the company WILL DEFINITELY NOT GO BANKRUPT if they improve 10%, or 20%, or even 150%. You just know that they WILL definitely go bankrupt if they don't improve 10%.

E is relevant and survives POE

can someone please explain why C is wrong?

Hi veenu08.

C has a very common logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy is:
Fact: X happens ==> Y MUST happen
Conclusion: X does not happen ==> Y MUST NOT happen
This is wrong conclusion. Why?
Because X is only one of many factors that cause Y happen. If X does not happen, other factor may cause Y happen.

For example:
Fact: I have a flu ==> I MUST stay at home to avoid further health problem
Conclusion: I don't have a flu ==> I MUST NOT stay at home to avoid further health problem

Is the conclusion correct? Nope, because flu is only one of many factors that causes health problem. Even I don't have a flu, but doctor recommends me that "I MUST stay at home" because there's a seasonal flu and many people are infected.

Back to the question.
market transformation happens ==> Quore MUST increase productivity to avoid bankruptcy
market transformation DOES NOT happen ==> Quore MUST NOT increase productivity to avoid bankruptcy
==> WRONG because market transformation IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. For example: Quore did not increase productivity, but the company still went to bankruptcy because of aggressive competition or its customer went to bankruptcy and did not make payment on time, blah blah......

Hope it helps.

could not understand how option E is correct . E is same as saying that ' if i can lift 50kgs, then i can also lift 100kgs, but if i cannot lift 100kgs, then i cannot lift 50 kgs too .'
can someone please explain.

It is "must also be true" qq. So, we have to actually find an option which is nothing but echoing the conclusion of the passage.


(A) It is only Quore's production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market.
- Nowhere anything similar mentioned in the passage.

(B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.
- It means if quore achieves a productivity of 10 percent then it will go bankrupt. Hence this statement too is not the correct one.

(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.
- Market need not to take any action for quora. Irrelevant.

(D) Because of the transformation of the market Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years.
- Nowhere in the passage, mentioned anything similar to this.

(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.
- 20 percent productivity will be attainable by itself as soon as Quore attains 10 percent and being unattainable for 10 percent means Quore will go bankrupt. Hence correct.


Experts can also add in case I am missing/misinterpreting something important.

Changing market trend--->Need in prod increase of 10%(20% not necessary)--->avoid bankrupt.
If 10% attained 20% is possible.

(A) It is only Quore's production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market.
No Info of only structure is reason.. Out

(B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.
Cant say that. 10% will evade bankruption. But 20% need not because no info abt it. What if excess prod leads to bankruption?

(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy.
Yes. Bankruption is a result of <10% increase in production need that is inturn a result of market transformation. just like no demand, no need..

(D) Because of the transformation of the market Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years.
Not given in passage..

(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt.
We cant say that. Premise says that if 10% is possible 20% is attainable. that means if 10% is possible WITH EXTRA EFFORTS 20% is possible(means attainable).. But I dont know how this became an answer.. Please help...

I guess since it is must be true question , we hv to use no information outside the stem And assume all that given is 100% true . Be it 'sun rise from south or dog hunt the sparrow in sky' .
with that in mind , if 20% is unattainable then we shld ask that why it is unattainable? .as per stem 20% will be unattainable only when 10% is not achieved, implying bankruptcy.

Thats the only reasoning i could think of.

Good one !!

If 20% production is possible ====> 10% production is possible

If 20% production is not possible ====> 10% production is not possible====> Bankruptcy.

None but option (E) correctly matches our understanding, hence this is the correct answer.

I dont see why C) is incorrect. The question states that because of market transformation, Quora must increase productivity.
It doesnt state any other reason why productivity had to be increased, so we cant assume that Quora had to increase productivity otherwise.

I understand why E) is also a possible answer, but I think C) works too.

The stimulus states -



Market transformation is going to happen and it is beyond the scope of Quore, Inc. to control , thus Market transformation id a external factor which is going to happen the next possible course of action to survive in the changing market place is to increase production by 10% in the following 2 years.

Please feel free to revert in case of any doubt.

(A) It is only Quore’s production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market. We don't know that, the text tells us only that the production structure is such that if 10% increase is attainable then also it's 20%
(B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years. We don't know how the market is gonna be. What if another change in the market happens the year after and Quore needs a 50% increase?
(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy. The text doesn't say anything about the previous situation. Quore could have needed an increase of 5%. It's not the 10% required after the market transformation but it's still an increase.
(D) Because of the transformation of the market, Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years. Not true. Quore needs to reach a 10% increase or it will go bankrupt for sure, but we don't know if Quore will succeed.
(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt. True. If 20% is possible then 10% is possible, and if 10% is not reached Quore will go bankrupt

Because of the recent transformation of the market. Quore, Inc., must increase productivity, 10 percent over the course of the next two years, or it will certainly go bankrupt. In fact, however, Quore’s production structure is such that if a 10 percent productivity increase is possible, then a 20 percent increase is attainable.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them also be true?

This a must be true question with all premises and no conclusion. The argument states that if Quore Inc does not increase productivity >>it will go bankrupt. Second: if a 10% is possible >> 20% increase is attainable.

Let's look at the answer options one by one.

(A) It is only Quore’s production structure that makes it possible for Quore to survive the transformation of the market: Nowhere in the argument is this stated. It does not mention about other production structures other than Quore's.

B) Quore will not go bankrupt if it achieves a productivity increase of 20 percent over the next two years.- This option mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. If a 10%>20% increase is not guaranteed it will go bankrupt. However, this does not mean that a 20% increase will necessarily mean no bankruptcy. X leads to Y can meant "Not Y>>Not X". However, it can't mean Not X leads to Not Y. X is "not achieving 10% here" and Y is "bankruptcy".
So, this means not achieveing 10% leads to bankruptcy. However, achieving 10% does not lead to no bankruptcy situation (notX>>notY not being equal )

(C) If the market had not been transformed, Quore would have required no productivity increase in order to avoid bankruptcy. - nothing substantiates this

(D) Because of the transformation of the market, Quore will achieve a productivity increase of 10 percent over the next two years. - not necessarily true, they may or may not achieve

(E) If a 20 percent productivity increase is unattainable for Quore, then it must go bankrupt. - Yes!. This is a reformed version of X>>Y. If it does attain the increase, it will go bankrupt. Since 10%>>20% (as given in the argument)., so if 20% is not there, it means 10% is also not there. Hence, 20% can be used in place 10% here. E is correct.

Good question.

Here is my take.

Let's begin by identifying the necessary conditions and the results.

Necessary conditions
#1 Transformation of the markets
#2 Productivity increase

Sufficient condition ? Not given in the passage

Result
No bankcruptcy

A. No. The production structure is such that a 10% increase in productivity is only possible not guaranteed. Moreover we cannot say that there is a link between survival and productivity. Maybe there is. But we cannot say for sure
D. Not necessary. We are only told that a 10% increase is POSSIBLE


B. Satisfying a NECESSARY CONDITION does not guarantee the RESULT. But satisfying both NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS only guarantees the RESULT. In the question we do not have any sufficient conditions mentioned. So either they are met or not met. So we cannot be sure. OUT
C According to this statement if #1 did not happen, #2 would not have happened. Again #1 is a NECESSARY CONDITION and NOT a sufficient condition. There could be other reasons to increase productivity. OUT

E Only this choice logically follows. If 20% is not attainable, 10% is not possible and if 10% is not possible then bankruptcy is imminent.T THE CONTRAPOSITIVE MUST BE TRUE. IF SUFFICIENT conditions are met but NECESSARY CONDITIONS are not met, then the we do not get the RESULT