Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this.

Of course, this is OG13, CR #8, a new question that did not appear in the OG12. Let's look at this prompt.

GENERAL RULE: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked.
FACT/EVIDENCE: In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries.
CONCLUSION: Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

We are told that technological improvements cause increases in labor productivity --- to use the language of formal logic, we know that technological improvements are sufficient for an increase in labor productivity. This is quite different from saying that: technological improvements are necessary for an increase in labor productivity. In other words, the argument is implicitly assuming that absolutely nothing else ---- labor conditions, local economic conditions, difference in shipping cost for materials or sale, etc. etc. --- would affect labor productivity. That's crazy. All kinds of other things also could affect labor productivity. Technological improvements are sufficient but not necessary for an increase in labor productivity.
Parland has higher labor productivity than does Vergia. One possible explanation could be a technological superiority, but again, there are a dozen other things that might differ between the two regions and might account for the difference in labor productivity.
The answer that best summarizes this flaw is (C) --- assuming that one particular cause is the only possible cause, or in other words, assuming that a sufficient cause is thereby also a necessary cause.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Clear C , argument states Tech Adv ---> High Labor Productivity , doesnt consider any other ways in which Labor productivity can be high.
_________________

Please press KUDOS if you like my post

Hey Mike, even i got C as an answer, but can we do this using the method of validation? I mean sometimes, in questions like this, i m not able to understand half the options. So , how do i go abt it?

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with that terminology "method of validation" --- what does that mean, and whose term is that?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Thanks Mike

But can you explain why is e) wrong?
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

+1 C

The author assumes that there is only one cause for more productivity.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Dear getgyan,

First of all, if you are new to CR, I highly recommend these blogs:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/introducti ... reasoning/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments- ... -the-gmat/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-cr-paradox-questions/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/formal-log ... reasoning/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/save-time- ... questions/

Also, your reading of that particular answer choice, (E), is off, and it's a grammar problem, not a logic problem. In the final part of that sentence...
the conclusion that is to be established
...the phrase "that is to be established" is simply a relative clause that modifies the word "conclusion" --- it is in there to make sure everything is hyper-clear, almost to the points of redundancy. There is no extra logic happening in that part of the sentence ---- the entire phrase "the conclusion that is to be established" is just a fancy way of saying "the main conclusion of the argument."
You are reading those two "that"-clauses as if there were in parallel, and they are NOT --- if they were, the would be joined by the word "and" --- instead, the first "that"-clause modifies "distinction" and explains what kind of distinction --- that's where the meat of the logic is ---- and nested within this first "that"-clause is a second, near-redundant, clause simply modifying the word "conclusion."

Grammar supports logic -- that's important to remember both on GMAT CR and on GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

I agree --- when the GMAT says "infer", it is looking for something that is little more than a hair's breadth away from what is clearly stated in black and white.


True, that's an even more basic problem with (E) --- there's really no distinction being made at all, so there certainly can't be a distinction that presupposes the conclusion.
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Truly understand what the stimulus says
_________________

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.

Dear mehulsayani

The terminology here is quite straightforward. There is no jargon or terminology specific to any particular discipline. This came from the OG and is very much representative of the language you will see on GMAT CR. If this level of analysis is unfamiliar, you need to amp up your reading --- the NYT, the WSJ, and the Economist Magazine.

See these blogs:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/reading-fo ... economist/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-readi ... ork-times/

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep