Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 26 Jul 2014, 09:15

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids,

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1498
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 26 [2] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2005, 23:03
2
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (02:39) correct 36% (01:28) wrong based on 369 sessions
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan, Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain's serotonin level. Thus sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is presented in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 840
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
CR: Seratonin [#permalink] New post 02 Oct 2008, 14:49
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan. Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain’s serotonin level. Thus sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is presented in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 171
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR Ingested Protine [#permalink] New post 02 Nov 2008, 04:57
guys - i know that D is the right one, but can some one tell me why A is sooo wrong?

cheers
7 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 67 [7] , given: 0

Re: CR Ingested Protine [#permalink] New post 02 Nov 2008, 11:28
7
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Good question, domleon. It's a basic principle that shows up in many CR questions. The principle is that "If X, then Y" does not mean the same thing as "If Y, then X". This seems obvious when expressed this way, and it is -- but the testmakers have ways of writing "If X, then Y" statements that are hard to recognize.

In this case, the evidence definitely proves that (as long as protein is ingested first), ingestion of sugar will increase the brain's serotonin level. The conclusion is that ingesting sugar will help you feel relaxed and anxiety-free. It's fairly clear what the missing assumption is: Increasing the brain's serotonin level will help you feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

What is not so obvious is that this is really an if-then statement: If the brain's serotonin level is increased, then you are more likely to feel relaxed and anxiety-free (If X, then Y). In other words, increasing the brain's serotonin level will have this effect, but it is NOT necessarily the ONLY way to have this effect.

This is NOT the same as saying "If you feel more relaxed and anxiety-free, then your serotonin level must have increased." (If Y, then X) This statement says that increasing serotonin is the ONLY way to feel more relaxed and anxiety-free.

Choice A is wrong because it says that increasing serotonin is the ONLY way to feel more relaxed and anxiety-free -- in other words, "If you feel more relaxed etc., then your serotonin level must have increased." That's "If Y, then X", where we need "If X, then Y".
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [2] , given: 23

GMAT Tests User
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, [#permalink] New post 05 Mar 2011, 16:45
2
This post received
KUDOS
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan. Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain’s serotonin level. Thus sugars cause mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is presented in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.

For this Q can all A,B & D be correct answers?
CR bible says when we have causal reasoning as in this modified Q, effect(mood elevation) occurs only when cause(sugar) occurs.
And in such Qs assumption question is similar to strengthen question for which correct answer fits "cause doesn't occur, effect doesn't occur" category.
I am changing B(which originally is like "no cause, OPPOSITE effect" to
B) Mood elevation is not observed in people who consume foods not rich sugar.
Now it is "no cause, no effect". Does that mean this is also a correct answer?

Also according to CR bible, since this causal reasoning Q, sugar is the only reason for mood elevation.
That means even A should answer the Q.
What do you think?

Below is original Q with straightforwad answer
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


Quote:
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan. Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain’s serotonin level. Thus, sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin in the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is present in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.

Attachments

File comment: CR bible Assumptions and Causality topic
Assumptions and Causality.docx [13.47 KiB]
Downloaded 185 times

To download please login or register as a user


_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)


Last edited by hellishbrain on 06 Mar 2011, 08:09, edited 2 times in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 321
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 35

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 05 Mar 2011, 17:52
IMO the major difference between A and D is:

- In A the requires is to extreme
- In D promotes makes the choice a premise which supports the conclusion.

D it is.
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 932
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 05 Mar 2011, 23:14
I read MGMAT CR guide. They say use the "therefore test" to determine conclusion. The final thing the stimulus said is "helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free."

I will give you a quant example. If the stimulus is a = b, b = c. The conclusion is a = c. This is "ultimate" - like "nirvana" - there cannot be any conclusion beyond this. So using the same principle the conclusion is the last few words "one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free."

Lets say c = "one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free."
and a = "serotonin"
and b = something intermediate

The assumption should strengthen a = c is possible. D is exactly this.

A is bridging the "logical gap" but assuming exclusivity. Anything which is extreme can be countered easily. E.g If I say she is the most beautiful girl - this is extreme and untenable.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 00:30
Thanks guys but you seem to answer the original Q, which I have given only for reference.

Please answer my questions and not the original Q(I know it's open answer)
Modified Q(by me) has "sugars cause mood elevation.." instead of "sugars can play a major role in mood ele.."...

This makes it cause-effect problem...Below is what CR bible says about such arguments
“When an GMAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another,
that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause
of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce
the effect.”

From this don't you think A can also be the answer. Above statement assumes the "exclusivity".

Also what about B(modified)? I have reasoned how even that can be possible answer.
Note: Since my query is related to modified Q you don't need to select just one answer. Please let me know all possible CORRECT answers.
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 932
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 180 [1] , given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 01:02
1
This post received
KUDOS
hellishbrain wrote:
Thanks guys but you seem to answer the original Q, which I have given only for reference.
Please answer my questions and not the original Q(I know it's open answer)
Modified Q(by me) has "sugars cause mood elevation.." instead of "sugars can play a major role in mood ele.."...
This makes it cause-effect problem...Below is what CR bible says about such arguments
“When an GMAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another,that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect.”

Lets assume CR bible is not "gospel" truth. Everything is not spoken by God ;-) We are even and I can critique the above now.
“When an GMAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another,
that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause
of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce
the effect.”
Yes this is true in a cause and effect scenario when it is asserting. ONLY X leads to Y. Now the conclusion starts with exclusivity. i.e. only. Assumption is like a "bridge" - on which conclusion "stands". If conclusion is heavy, the bridge should be "iron clad".


From this don't you think A can also be the answer. Above statement assumes the "exclusivity".
Also what about B(modified)? I have reasoned how even that can be possible answer.
To make B as an answer, you must rephrase conclusion to start with "only"

Note: Since my query is related to modified Q you don't need to select just one answer. Please let me know all possible CORRECT answers.
Hope that helps !
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 932
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 180 [1] , given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 03:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
I missed "modified B". Lets take a look

B) Mood elevation is not observed in people who consume foods not rich sugar.------> This can countered with statement - mood elevation is observed in people who consume "normal" levels of sugar.

So the quantity of sugar is irrelevant to the conclusion. Conclusion rests on whether "serotonin" levels help the person "become" anxiety free and relaxed.

On the other hand, A assumes exclusivity - "requires".
(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.------>
This assumption can be countered easily - If the person has genetic propensity for serotonin levels in the blood, he doesn't require an extra dose. So "require" is plain wrong.

D is the only one left.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 07:49
I like that when you say 'CR bible is not gospel truth'. People really consider it as 'Bible'.

Consider this argument from book

"Doctors in Britain have long suspected that patients
who wear tinted eyeglasses are abnormally prone to
depression and hypochondria. Psychological tests
given there to hospital patients admitted for physical
complaints like heart pain and digestive distress
confirmed such a relationship. Perhaps people whose
relationship to the world is psychologically painful
choose such glasses to reduce visual stimulation,
which is perceived as irritating. At any rate, it can be
concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is
because
the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or
hypochondriacal."

there is no "ONLY" or any other exclusivity showing word there.
But CR bible considers it cause-effect argument and applies its assumption that I mentioned in previous post. Its this assumption is confusing me sometimes.

As for A your reasoning is interesting.
But what I think it is increasing that you really reasoned on and not 'require'.
Still I see point there because conclusion just says 'sugars cause' and not 'increase in sugars cause'.
As you mentioned some lucky ones :) may already have serotonin in brain.
So even if we follow CR bible strictly, this assumption may fall.
But I again I don't know how would you consider it if I remove the 'increasing' from A.

For B you are right. The quantity is not mentioned anywhere.
How about below one?
B) Mood elevation is not observed in people who consume foods with no sugar.

See I am talking all this from CR bible strategy perspective and you would understand why I am posing all these questions if you go through it(at least assumption topic)
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 08:09
I have attached "Assumptions and Causality" topic from CR bible for reference.
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 932
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 10:48
hellishbrain wrote:
I there is no "ONLY" or any other exclusivity showing word there.
But CR bible considers it cause-effect argument and applies its assumption that I mentioned in previous post. Its this assumption is confusing me sometimes.

Ok. If PS bible is not working well consider walking through MGMAT CR guide first.
If there is bridge between point A and B how will you go? Walk over the bridge. If the bridge falls - you will never reach the destination. I cannot emphasize this enough if the destination is the conclusion - the argument will fall apart. Having said this - lets say there is another way to reach conclusion i.e. Z to B.

Now you have a dual route to the destination. This weakens the first assumption - unless you are told specifically that ZB is inferior to AB. Or AB is the superior path. So the argument assumes a defender - just as in Formula 1 - Michael Shumacher will need a defender Rubens Barrichello, so Schumacher will run for the finish but the sole purpose of the "defender" is to block other competitors from reaching the finish line. Not only the defender has to defend but he has the obligation to allow Schumacher to pass and win the race.

Coming back to CR world - we have a defender assumption which will prevent the "alternate path" to the conclusion. This will strengthen the argument - allowing it to "win".

In the second example -
Conclusion : it can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.
Cause = depression or hypochondria
Effect = people wear tinted glasses
Defender Assumption : People usually don't wear tinted glasses for reasons other than depression or hypochondria.

There is one more defender - which prevents the confusion between cause and effect and keeps the relationship straight. If X -> Y (X leads to Y) the defender assumes Y does not lead to X. So in this example
Defender Assumption : Tinted glasses don't cause depression or hypochondria.

hellishbrain wrote:
But I again I don't know how would you consider it if I remove the 'increasing' from A.
For B you are right. The quantity is not mentioned anywhere.
How about below one?
B) Mood elevation is not observed in people who consume foods with no sugar.
See I am talking all this from CR bible strategy perspective and you would understand why I am posing all these questions if you go through it(at least assumption topic)

B still doesnt work. It is extreme. Newer version that you wrote is not different from the previous version which was also extreme.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood. (Old version)
(B) Mood elevation is not observed in people who consume foods with no sugar. (Newer version)


The reason is representativeness. The conclusion is not dependent on the control group who forgo sugar in their diet. It is dependent on the group who USE sugar. Hope that helps !
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Instructor
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 967
Location: Toronto
Followers: 247

Kudos [?]: 629 [1] , given: 3

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 20:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
hellishbrain wrote:
Also according to CR bible, since this causal reasoning Q, sugar is the only reason for mood elevation.


I'm 100% certain the CR 'bible' does not say that. If, for example, I make the very simple argument: 'cars cause pollution', I'm certainly not saying that cars are the *only* cause of pollution. Nor am I assuming what is known in logic as the 'converse' (negate the cause, negate the effect) - that if there were no cars, there would be no pollution. In general, if an argument is sound, the converse will not necessarily be sound; sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not. The converse is never, however, a necessary *assumption* in any argument, and remember that's what the question in your post asked for: an assumption. So your hypothetical answer B is in no way an assumption in the argument, and would not be the correct answer here.

Instead we have an argument in the form 'X causes Y, therefore X causes Z'. In the language of the question, the argument says 'sugar causes increased serotonin, therefore sugar causes happiness'. For that argument to be sound, we need to assume that Y causes Z -- that is, that serotonin causes happiness. That's why the answer is D.
_________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Matriculating
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 932
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 21:39
Bulls eye ! Thanks for this one.

IanStewart wrote:
hellishbrain wrote:
Also according to CR bible, since this causal reasoning Q, sugar is the only reason for mood elevation.


I'm 100% certain the CR 'bible' does not say that. If, for example, I make the very simple argument: 'cars cause pollution', I'm certainly not saying that cars are the *only* cause of pollution. Nor am I assuming what is known in logic as the 'converse' (negate the cause, negate the effect) - that if there were no cars, there would be no pollution. In general, if an argument is sound, the converse will not necessarily be sound; sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not. The converse is never, however, a necessary *assumption* in any argument, and remember that's what the question in your post asked for: an assumption. So your hypothetical answer B is in no way an assumption in the argument, and would not be the correct answer here.

Instead we have an argument in the form 'X causes Y, therefore X causes Z'. In the language of the question, the argument says 'sugar causes increased serotonin, therefore sugar causes happiness'. For that argument to be sound, we need to assume that Y causes Z -- that is, that serotonin causes happiness. That's why the answer is D.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2011, 23:52
All points appreciated.
And yes I have to go through MGMAT CR to assess the differences and gain any other good points in it.

Quote:
Conclusion : it can be concluded that when such glasses are worn, it is because the wearer has a tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.
Cause = depression or hypochondria
Effect = people wear tinted glasses
Defender Assumption : People usually don't wear tinted glasses for reasons other than depression or hypochondria.


For CR bible there is no 'usually', it is
People don't wear tinted glasses for any reason other than depression or hypochondria.

Stating CR bible assumption again
“When an GMAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another,that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect.”
Quote:
There is one more defender - which prevents the confusion between cause and effect and keeps the relationship straight. If X -> Y (X leads to Y) the defender assumes Y does not lead to X. So in this example
Defender Assumption : Tinted glasses don't cause depression or hypochondria.


Yes but this comes from some background.
When I say "X and Y are happening simultaneously" and concluding that "X causes Y", you may assume "Y is not causing X"

Let's take a simple ex.
"only gmat1220's replies make hellishbrain think". (CR bible wont even need 'only' to show it's only reason)
cause: gmat1220, effect: hellishbrain thinks

From this can you assume "hellishbrain's thoughts don't make gmat1220 reply"?
Technically I am not saying anything other way round, and practically "hellishbrain's thoughts make gmat1220 reply"


Quote:
B still doesnt work. It is extreme. Newer version that you wrote is not different from the previous version which was also extreme.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood. (Old version)
(B) Mood elevation is not observed in people who consume foods with no sugar. (Newer version)


In 'modified B' we have 'Mood elevation is not observed" while original B has 'results in anxiety and a lowering of mood'
'No mood elevation' may mean 'just fine' but not necessarily 'anxious'.

well I am trying to modify B to make it fit category C in attached doc.
"when there is not cause, there is no effect"

Don't you think modified B is saying "no sugar -> No mood elevation"?
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)


Last edited by hellishbrain on 07 Mar 2011, 05:35, edited 2 times in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 07 Mar 2011, 04:48
@IanStewart
I agree with every point(personally that is what i thought but asking these questions because CR bible seems to suggest something different) of yours except may be the first sentence.
If you are 100% certain, am I reading CR bible incorrectly? I must be missing something.

All the queries I raised are based on CR bible strategy for assumption Qs.
Please go through attached doc(exactly copied from CR bible) and make me understand.
Please see an example in the doc for the 'converse'.
Isn't 'converse' really 'effect as cause and cause as effect' and not 'negate cause, negate effect'?
Irrespective of that, CR bible says showing 'reverse doesn't exist' (category D in doc) or 'no cause, no effect'(category C) can be the assumption.

Thanks.

IanStewart wrote:
hellishbrain wrote:
Also according to CR bible, since this causal reasoning Q, sugar is the only reason for mood elevation.


I'm 100% certain the CR 'bible' does not say that. If, for example, I make the very simple argument: 'cars cause pollution', I'm certainly not saying that cars are the *only* cause of pollution. Nor am I assuming what is known in logic as the 'converse' (negate the cause, negate the effect) - that if there were no cars, there would be no pollution. In general, if an argument is sound, the converse will not necessarily be sound; sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not. The converse is never, however, a necessary *assumption* in any argument, and remember that's what the question in your post asked for: an assumption. So your hypothetical answer B is in no way an assumption in the argument, and would not be the correct answer here.

Instead we have an argument in the form 'X causes Y, therefore X causes Z'. In the language of the question, the argument says 'sugar causes increased serotonin, therefore sugar causes happiness'. For that argument to be sound, we need to assume that Y causes Z -- that is, that serotonin causes happiness. That's why the answer is D.

_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 07 Mar 2011, 07:26
Take category A in CR bible:

"The correct answer to an
Assumption question will normally fit one of the following categories:

A. Eliminates any alternate cause for the stated effect
Because the author believes there is only one cause (the stated cause in
the argument), the author assumes no other cause exists.
"


Ian's ex. 'cars cause pollution'

I'll eliminate an alternate cause by saying "coal power plants don't cause pollution".

Now I don't think this can be the assumption. May be this is very plain ex. (There are other ex. where it works fine I guess)

I am slightly doubting this section in CR bible.
But since so many people swear by it, I think I am not getting it.
Help needed.
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)

1 KUDOS received
GMAT Instructor
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 967
Location: Toronto
Followers: 247

Kudos [?]: 629 [1] , given: 3

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 08 Mar 2011, 16:07
1
This post received
KUDOS
Perhaps I should have said '99% sure' instead of '100%'. I won't comment on the contents of a book without seeing quotes in context, and I don't have a copy of that book handy at the moment. I stand by what I said above, however; when someone claims that a certain cause produces a certain effect, there can still be other causes which produce that effect. That's true in real life, and on the GMAT as well. If the 'bible' says otherwise, it's plainly wrong.

As for the meaning of the 'converse' in logic, there are two equivalent ways of defining it. If we say 'When A is true, B is true', then what is known in logic as the 'converse' says 'when B is true, A is true'. You can restate that in an entirely equivalent way by saying 'when A is not true, B is not true' (if you know the language of formal logic, I'm just taking the 'contrapositive', though you don't need to know that term).

Now, when an argument is true, the converse need not be true; sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not. It's perhaps easiest to take an example from mathematics. For example, 'if x = 2, then x^2 = 4' is clearly true. The converse is not, however: 'if x^2 = 4' then it is not necessarily true that x=2, since x might be equal to -2.

In any case, when you make an argument, you are never *assuming* the converse of your argument is true; it's not an assumption, nor is it equivalent to the original argument.
_________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 23

GMAT Tests User
Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation [#permalink] New post 09 Mar 2011, 05:03
Thanks Ian.

Just to add to your example, even the other converse 'when A is not true, B is not true' may not be assumed.
'if x = 2, then x^2 = 4'; 'x is not equal to 2' does not necessarily mean 'x^2 is not equal to 4'.

Any powerscore people here to assert their views on 'assumption & causality' in the book?
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it :)

Re: Modified Powerscore Q Sugar-relaxation   [#permalink] 09 Mar 2011, 05:03
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In humans,ingested protein is broken down into amino mun23 0 06 Mar 2013, 12:24
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, getgyan 0 24 Sep 2012, 22:34
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, getgyan 0 28 Sep 2012, 03:03
In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, hellishbrain 0 09 Mar 2011, 05:03
Measurements of the extent of amino-acid decomposition in chunjuwu 3 03 Oct 2004, 17:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids,

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 32 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.