Despite the existence of high tech polymers that could be us

Dear rawjetraw,
I'm happy to respond.

I must say, I don't particularly like the style of writing in this question. It seems very awkwardly worded ("that ... that .. that ... that"), in a way that would never be correct on the GMAT SC. On the GMAT itself, every single sentence that appears in the CR or RC adheres to the high standards they hold in GMAT SC.

Nevertheless, the answer is clear. There is the subtle leap, from the second sentence to the last --- second sentence = "only professional golfers can afford it", third sentence = "limited by PGA." This raise the subtle question: what does the PGA allowing it or not allowing it have to do with whether professional golfers shell out the money for it? This kind of thinking I call the "Bridge" Approach, and I discuss it here:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/assumption ... -the-gmat/

Let's go through the answers with the Negation Test
(A). The market for inexpensive, traditional golf equipment cannot expand unless the market for high-performance, innovative professional golf equipment expands.
Suppose the work for inexpensive, traditional golf equipment is expanding. Maybe it is. We have no idea. It's not clear that whether that market expands would have any influence on the current argument. This is irrelevant and incorrect.
(B). The Professional Golfers' Association does not keep abreast of innovative golf equipment designs.
Not necessarily. The PGA could know all about this innovation, but because they are stodgy old traditionalists, they don't want to change anything. Then the argument would still work. This is incorrect.
(C). Professional golfers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside of what is allowed for use in professional golf tournaments.
Aha! If professional golfers did generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside of what is allowed by the PGA, then they probably would be running out and buying this equipment that would help them play better in their non-tournament play. Therefore, the limits set by the PGA would have no influence on the innovation in technology. If we deny (C), the argument collapses. That's the sign of an assumption. This is definitely an assumption of this argument.
(D). Most golfers would not be interested in purchasing golf equipment that could substantially improve their score.
Maybe most golfers are interested, but they simply can't afford it. That would be entirely consistent with the argument. This is incorrect.
(E). The rules established by the Professional Golfers' Association prohibit any technological innovations in golf equipment.
This is just too dogmatically extreme. It sounds as if the PGA is not a big fan of technological innovations, but that's different from having rules prohibiting it. There's an enormous difference between being reluctant to adopt X and having fixed rules against X. This answers blurs that difference, and is incorrect.

The only viable answer is the OA, (C).

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

This question is the exact replica of the official question below with order of choices and wording remaining almost same:

The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet. The only cyclist seriously interested in innovation and willing to pay for it are bicycle racers. Therefore, innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purpose of competition in bicycle races.

Which of following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

a) The market for cheap, traditional bicycle can not expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.

b) High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns.

c) Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.

d) The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.

e) The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.

Hi mba1382,

Thanks for this question. But I beg to differ that with the "language is almost same" part .... the underlying meaning is an exact replica... but as Mike pointed out the question that I posted is worded in a very "unlike-GMAT-standard" manner and is very confusing. And your que is just perfect. I understood in just one read.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply. It makes perfect sense. And concur with your opinion about the language used in this question. It really confused the hell out of me, I read it a couple of times.. broke it down ... but to no avail.. it still remained unclear.

There was this nagging feeling in my head, telling me that I may not have understood the question after all.. that theres something weird about this question... that something is not right... which didnt make it easier to mark the answer. (ps: i am sure you get the point... just wanted to stress how "unlike-gmat" this awkward ques was )

I did the negation test and got (C) as answer but I just wanted someone to help me make sense of this question.

Thanks for your analysis. It helped.

P: HTP used in golf equipment can help golfers increase their score
P: Manufactures are technologically conservative because only professional golfers will pay for technological innovations in golf equipment
C: Innovation is limited because of PGA which decides what to use in professional golf tournaments.

Assumption : Professional golfers only think about innovations that can be used in PGA , not anything outside the the PGA.
Answer is C

Hi Mike
Could you please explain in more detail why answer choice D and E are not possible answers. Because if golfers would be interested in purchasing olf equipment that could substantially improve their score, the argument collapses too (it's the same as C, but maybe not as strong as C). And finally if PGA prohibits all these technologies, wouldnt that make clear sense too? I would love to say "bad question" but that would be too easy. Mh. Thanks

Dear reto,
I'm happy to respond. I am critical of the grammar and style in which the prompt is written---this is not GMAT like---but among the answers, there is only one clear answer, (C), so in that sense, the logic is GMAT-like.

Here's the prompt again:
Despite the existence of high tech polymers that could be used to make golf equipment that would substantially improve an average golfer's score, golf equipment manufacturers tend toward technological conservatism. This is because the only golfers sufficiently interested in the technological innovation of golf equipment that they would be willing to pay the prohibitive sums that these new clubs would initially cost are professional golfers. Therefore, innovation in golf equipment technology is limited by what the Professional Golfers' Association is willing to allow for use in professional golf tournaments.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

Here's the OA, (C), and the two answers about which you ask:
(C) Professional golfers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside of what is allowed for use in professional golf tournaments.
(D) Most golfers would not be interested in purchasing golf equipment that could substantially improve their score.
(E) The rules established by the Professional Golfers' Association prohibit any technological innovations in golf equipment

What's wrong with (D) and (E)? We have to be very precise in our thinking here. We will apply the Negation Test for assumptions. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/assumption ... -the-gmat/

The prompt argument is about what group of people? Professional golfers, governed by the rules of the PGA. Choice (D) is about what group of people? Golfers in general, people who play golf. I don't know any pros in the PGA, but I know many people who play golf as a recreation. Think of any sport: think of all the amateurs who play it, and all the professionals who play in the organized professional sport. The amateurs always far outnumber the professionals. So, fact #1: (D) is talking about a different group of people than the group about whom the prompt talks. The general group in (D), the set of all possible golfers, includes the pros, but it also includes many other people.
So, let's negate (D). Let's assume that most golfers, the amateurs out there, would absolutely love to have new equipment that would improve their game. The problem is: the cost of this equipment. The prompt makes clear: this new equipment would be very expensive, and in fact, just about the only people who could afford it would be the people playing in the pros. Think about this. Suppose we talked to one of our friends, who plays golf. Maybe this friend pays, say, $100 year to play at some local golf course. Maybe this friend has a nice set of clubs that cost a few hundred dollars, but it's starting to get old, and the friend is in the market for a new set of clubs. Now, we say to this friend, "Would you like to buy a new set of clubs that would substantially improve your score?" Our friend would say, "Absolutely! I'm looking for a good new set of clubs! I would very interested in clubs that could improve my score!" Then, we say, "OK, we have this new polymer set that will cost $500,000. Are you interested?" Predictably, our friend says, "No way! Of course not!" No middle-class golf amateur is going to be interested in those clubs, no matter how good they are. Maybe a few multi-millionaires who play golf as amateurs and are really serious about it might buy such clubs, but most amateur golfers, like most of the population, are middle class or poor, and for these folks, super-expensive clubs are out of the question, no matter how interested they might be in equipment that would improve their score.
In order to understand the problem with (D), you have to understand the real-world economics of the situation.

The problem with (E) is a little different. The language is too extreme.
(E) The rules established by the Professional Golfers' Association prohibit any technological innovations in golf equipment
In other words,
The PGA Rules prohibit ALL technological innovations in golf equipment
Extreme statements, involving totalizing words such as "all," "none," "always," "never," "every," etc. are usually incorrect on the GMAT SC.
You see, what is the opposite of ALL? Most people would say that the opposite of ALL is NONE, but that is logically not the case. The opposite of "ALL are" is "some aren't." The opposite of
The PGA Rules prohibit ALL technological innovations in golf equipment
is
The PGA Rules allow a few technological innovations in golf equipment
Suppose they PGA allowed, say, new golf balls with some special filling made of some new synthetic substance. That would be a technological advance allowed by the PGA. That still doesn't mean that the PGA would allow, say, golf clubs made from the new polymer. The PGA could allow some new technologies, just not the ones involving this particular polymer that the prompt argument is discussing. That would still be totally in line with the conclusion.

It's possible to negate either (D) or (E), and the argument still works fine. Neither one is an assumption.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________