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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 08:15

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 recent years, a village outside Osaka

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2012
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [3] , given: 7

In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 20 Oct 2013, 00:24
3
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (02:15) correct 46% (01:19) wrong based on 278 sessions
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

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

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 170
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 7

Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 20 Oct 2013, 03:17
Can you tell me the difference between A and B?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 41
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT Date: 12-10-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 15

Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 20 Oct 2013, 08:40
it was easy to eliminate C, D and E. Choice between A and B.

But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

Argument has assumed that " to take this festival seriously , must be true condition is dress up as ninjas".

Or one who is taking this festival seriously , would be dressed up as a ninja.
that's what option B says..
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 26
Location: Poland
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 491

Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2013, 19:24
skrishnakarthik wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

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

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees.

I would like to see some convincing explanation of the difference between a and b. Thanks.....:)
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 43
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 21

Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 27 Oct 2013, 02:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
- What abt people who doesnt dressup as ninjas, do they take it seriously too? They can be serious too..then the conclusion is wrong else right

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja
- Correct answer - all attendess who take function seriously will dress - up as ninja. As only children cam in dressup they only are serious about the festival

Hope it helps..!!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 25
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 12

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 07 May 2014, 22:01
skrishnakarthik wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

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

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees.


I feel this can be solved as a Sufficient/Necessary condition type of reasoning question.
The argument says you need to be dressed up as a Ninja to be taken seriously. This means dressing up like a ninja is a NECESSARY condition to be taken seriously and taken seriously is a sufficient condition.
Take festival seriously->Dressed as a Ninja
so valid answer should be either of the following:
1. Takes festival seriously -> Dressed up as ninja
2. Not Dressed up as a ninja -> Does Not takes festival seriously.

Only choice A and B are relevant here, of that choice B is same as 1 so is the correct answer.
Choice A means: Dressed up as ninja -> Takes festival seriously. which is incorrect as its not either 1 or 2 from above.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 132
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 101

Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 08 May 2014, 00:04
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q


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

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2014, 18:32
bb61 wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q


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

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").


Hi bb61,
I think your explanation is good. However, I believe we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q"
Logic does not work as an equation in which if you negate both sides you get the same equation.

Consider this example. "If someone is German, then he is European".
This does not mean that "If someone is not German, then he is not European". (That someone could be Italian, and still be European)

Would like to hear your thoughts, bro, and those of the community as well.
Thanks!
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2014
Posts: 96
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 42

CAT Tests
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2014, 00:40
B it is.
I agree with minmoswoh that we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q".
_________________

Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2014
Posts: 41
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 62

CAT Tests
In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2014, 06:21
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
minwoswoh wrote:
bb61 wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q


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

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").


Hi bb61,
I think your explanation is good. However, I believe we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q"
Logic does not work as an equation in which if you negate both sides you get the same equation.

Consider this example. "If someone is German, then he is European".
This does not mean that "If someone is not German, then he is not European". (That someone could be Italian, and still be European)

Would like to hear your thoughts, bro, and those of the community as well.
Thanks!


Hi

Case 1 : If P(takes festival seriously) is the sufficient condition for Q(dress up as Ninja) to Occur
Case 2 : And the Contrapositive will mean If Not Q(Not dress up as Ninja) --> then Not P((does not take festival seriously)

so in the question in hand , Case 1 is getting applied to Option B

As for your example, the contrapositive ll be

If someone is not European then he is not German

Hope it Makes Sense :)
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2014, 08:18
dream21 wrote:
minwoswoh wrote:
bb61 wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q


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

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").


Hi bb61,
I think your explanation is good. However, I believe we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q"
Logic does not work as an equation in which if you negate both sides you get the same equation.

Consider this example. "If someone is German, then he is European".
This does not mean that "If someone is not German, then he is not European". (That someone could be Italian, and still be European)

Would like to hear your thoughts, bro, and those of the community as well.
Thanks!


Hi

Case 1 : If P(takes festival seriously) is the sufficient condition for Q(dress up as Ninja) to Occur
Case 2 : And the Contrapositive will mean If Not Q(Not dress up as Ninja) --> then Not P((does not take festival seriously)

so in the question in hand , Case 1 is getting applied to Option B

As for your example, the contrapositive ll be

If someone is not European then he is not German

Hope it Makes Sense :)


Hi dream21,
It makes sense to me. So let me retype your reasoning.

P --> Q (Given)
Not P --> Not Q (INCORRECT)
Not Q --> Not P (CORRECT)

If Daniel is German, then he is European. (Given)
If Daniel is not German, then he is not European (INCORRECT)
If Daniel is not European, then he is not German (CORRECT)


Is this template correct at all times?
And ultimately, have you seen a significant number of Gmat questions based on this or we are just getting out of scope with formal logic?

Thanks!
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2014
Posts: 96
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [2] , given: 42

CAT Tests
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2014, 10:46
2
This post received
KUDOS
minwoswoh wrote:

Hi dream21,
It makes sense to me. So let me retype your reasoning.

P --> Q (Given)
Not P --> Not Q (INCORRECT)
Not Q --> Not P (CORRECT)

If Daniel is German, then he is European. (Given)
If Daniel is not German, then he is not European (INCORRECT)
If Daniel is not European, then he is not German (CORRECT)


Is this template correct at all times?
And ultimately, have you seen a significant number of Gmat questions based on this or we are just getting out of scope with formal logic?

Thanks!


If All P -> Q (given), Then what you have written is correct.I am not sure how to create a venn diagram in post as it will be easier to explain.

I will try to explain in text.
Imagine two circles as P and Q.
P is area inside P and Q is area inside Q
Not P is area outside circle P and Not Q is are ...Q

If All P -> Q , then P must lie inside Q i.e circle P is inside Q.

Condition 1 : Not Q --> Not P.
Not q means an area outside q.
If An area is out side Q , then it must be outside P also.Because P is inside q.So, The statement is always TRUE.

Condition 2: Not P --> Not Q.
Not P means area outside P.
As P is inside Q, Outside of area P could be region in Q or area out side Q also.So it can be Q or NOT Q both.So, This statement is not true.
_________________

Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2014, 11:28
VarunBhardwaj wrote:
minwoswoh wrote:

Hi dream21,
It makes sense to me. So let me retype your reasoning.

P --> Q (Given)
Not P --> Not Q (INCORRECT)
Not Q --> Not P (CORRECT)

If Daniel is German, then he is European. (Given)
If Daniel is not German, then he is not European (INCORRECT)
If Daniel is not European, then he is not German (CORRECT)


Is this template correct at all times?
And ultimately, have you seen a significant number of Gmat questions based on this or we are just getting out of scope with formal logic?

Thanks!


If All P -> Q (given), Then what you have written is correct.I am not sure how to create a venn diagram in post as it will be easier to explain.

I will try to explain in text.
Imagine two circles as P and Q.
P is area inside P and Q is area inside Q
Not P is area outside circle P and Not Q is are ...Q

If All P -> Q , then P must lie inside Q i.e circle P is inside Q.

Condition 1 : Not Q --> Not P.
Not q means an area outside q.
If An area is out side Q , then it must be outside P also.Because P is inside q.So, The statement is always TRUE.

Condition 2: Not P --> Not Q.
Not P means area outside P.
As P is inside Q, Outside of area P could be region in Q or area out side Q also.So it can be Q or NOT Q both.So, This statement is not true.


Makes sense to me, Varun.

+1 Kudos for you for taking the time to evaluate my reasoning and write this explanation.

Thanks
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 122
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 171

GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2014, 11:56
pqhai , can you please solve this question the POWERSCORE way? I am an absolute fan of your way of solving CR questions. Please enlighten!
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka   [#permalink] 24 Sep 2014, 11:56
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 In recent years, teachers of introductory courses Juz2play 1 18 Aug 2013, 00:44
Indian IT male 10 years work ex ( 5 Yr outside India): 680 bbiitma143 0 26 Jul 2013, 12:40
1 In recent years, the Holdsville Transportation Authority GetThisDone 5 28 Apr 2012, 21:42
Anyone in OSAKA? Awaiting 0 13 Jun 2010, 08:37
In recent years cattle breeders have increasingly used prasad_bgv 4 10 Jan 2005, 21:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In recent years, a village outside Osaka

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.