Over the past 5 years, Company X has posted double-digit growth in ann

QUESTION #16:

Commentator: When the popularity of a sport grows, the demand for talented players who perform consistently will far outstrip the supply. Fewer new players are entering ice hockey clubs than did previously. Some clubs have already started to respond to this situation by finding better ways to retain their current players. These tactics are a sure indicator that the popularity of ice hockey is growing.

Which of the following is the best criticism of the commentator’s reasoning?

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists. This seems correct as it weakens the conclusion. This sentence doubts the cause & effect relationship; even if effect is present does not mean that cause is present.
B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier. Irrelevant
C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all. Does nt address the cause & effect relationship.
D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented. Does not address the conclusion
E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players. Does nt address the C & E relationship.

I reached to the answer by process of elimination:


Popularity up -> means D for TP > S
now, fewer players enter.
Some clubs -> retain current players

this is an indicator that popularity is up.

well, the commentator does not take into consideration that the overall demand is not the same as Demand for talented players. The clubs might be paying more for the players, but that does not mean that all the players are talented.



A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists.
what is this answer choice talks about? We are concerned with the fact that even if the clubs try to retain current players, the popularity of the sport is not up. This answer choice doesn't help to explain this. A is out.

B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier.
this is irrelevant. no explanation that would show the flaw in the commentator's argument that the popularity is up.

C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all.
this has already been mentioned. Fewer new players enter ice hockey. thus, there still is a supply. C is out.

D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented.
Even if it happened before, we cannot prove that the popularity is not actually increasing.

E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players.
looks good. if the clubs pay more regardless of whether these players are not performing well that doesn't mean that the demand for the talented players is up. So far, E is the best from all.

Commentator: When the popularity of a sport grows, the demand for talented players who perform consistently will far outstrip the supply. Fewer new players are entering ice hockey clubs than did previously. Some clubs have already started to respond to this situation by finding better ways to retain their current players. These tactics are a sure indicator that the popularity of ice hockey is growing.

Condition: popularity increases --> demand will outstrip supply
Premise: Fewer new players are entering ice hockey clubs
Conclusion: Popularity of ice hockey is growing

Which of the following is the best criticism of the commentator’s reasoning?

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists. - Correct. We cannot infer that fewer players entering ice hockey clubs means that popularity of ice hockey has increased.
B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier. - Irrelevant
C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all. - Out of context - Does not attack the reasoning behind the increase in popularity of the sport.
D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented. - Out of context. We are focused on popularity of the sport.
E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players. - Irrelevant

Answer: A

Its A because the criticism states that the clubs mistakenly thinks its growing popularity because of lack of new players where in this condition doesn't exist.

OA should be 'C'. Demand-supply is not the indicator of popularity of the sport

Conclusion: Commentator concludes that "Clubs trying to retain players indicate that popularity of the ICE HOCKEY is growing.

In this conclusion following standard mistake has been made in the reasoning by the commentator:
If A implies B i.e A-->B then it does not mean B implies A i.e. B-->A

A [popularity of sport grow] ---> B [Demand > Supply i.e. supply is less]
B [less players entering and hence clubs retaining them means - Supply is less] ---> A [Sport (ice hockey) is growing(popular)]

Now let us look at each choice:

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists. - correct
Exactly the above standard mistake in reasoning is made. if the clubs are making provisions to handle the situation of the future when supply would be LESS does not really mean that demand at this moment is high i. e. the popularity of ICE hockey is growing. That is, if supply would be less (in future) then it's not necessary that it's due to the popularity of the games (in present).

B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier. - wrong
Clubs were apathetic to financial needs of players is not our concern. this is not related to popularity of game.

C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all. - wrong
Supply would or would not exist does not tell us if the game is popular or not.

D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented. - wrong
lets assume decline has happened in past but are we certain that the GAME was popular in that time. we are not concerned if the decline is happening for the first time or not.

E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players. - wrong
What is being done to retain the players is not in the scope. The problem is that retaining the players cannot be the proof if the game is now growing.

My answer is option A as it has something to do with the popularity of the ice hockey.

Commentator: When the popularity of a sport grows, the demand for talented players who perform consistently will far outstrip the supply. Fewer new players are entering ice hockey clubs than did previously. Some clubs have already started to respond to this situation by finding better ways to retain their current players. These tactics are a sure indicator that the popularity of ice hockey is growing.

Which of the following is the best criticism of the commentator’s reasoning?

The 2 premises is:
- Demand for talented players will outstrip supply for them when the sport gets popular;
- Some ice hockey clubs are trying to retain their players in order to respond to the fact that fewer players are getting into clubs.

From these 2 premises, the commentator concludes that the way some clubs are doing is the indicator of the popularity growth of ice hockey.

We can see that the commentator is vulnerable since the stimulus did state that the hockey clubs are doing this tactics in order to respond to the situation of less income players, not respond to the growing popularity of this sport by which demand is higher than supply. They do so probably in order to protect themselves from this trend in the future.

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists.
This is the correct answer/. It is possible that the clubs are anticipating the popularity of ice hockey in the future, and want to act to minimize any potential negative impacts. This statement will definitely weaken the commentator's argument.

B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier. Incorrect (Opposite choice). This could be a strengthener to the commentator's argument. It implies that what clubs are doing not for the purpose of compensating players for previous low wages, but probably for the growth of ice hockey.

C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all.
The commentator's reasoning does not contain any information about the non-existence of supply =>Incorrect

D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented.
Like C, the commentator's reasoning does not have anything to do with the history of such decline. =>Incorrect

E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players.
Like C and D, the commentator makes no conclusion about the players' performance. =>Incorrect

I will go for C .The only logical answer

Commentator: When the popularity of a sport grows, the demand for talented players who perform consistently will far outstrip the supply. Fewer new players are entering ice hockey clubs than did previously. Some clubs have already started to respond to this situation by finding better ways to retain their current players. These tactics are a sure indicator that the popularity of ice hockey is growing.

Which of the following is the best criticism of the commentator’s reasoning?

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists. Correct. The "adverse situation" is demand outstripping supply. We know that the supply has reduced but maybe the demand has still not outstripped the supply.
B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier. The author isn't concerned about the financial needs of the players.
C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all. Author never supposes that there will be no supply; he merely assumes that supply will be very low.
D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented. The author is not concerned about the situation having a precedent.
E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players. We are not concerned about the performance of the players. Additionally, the cause and effect relationship is reversed here. The stem says that the performance brings money; here the option says that the money brings in performance.

Answer: A

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists. - Though this talks about future issue, it doesnt address anything regarding the popularity that the author says. So not correct.
B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier- This has nothing to do with criticising the author s reasoning. Out of scope answer.
C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all. - Doesn't imply anything about the popularity of ice hockey. Therefore not a correct answer.
D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented. - This argument shows that the decline might not be due to the popularity and demand and it can be due to other reasons because as this is not the first time they have witnessed a decline.
E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players. - The fee paid has nothing to do with demand and supply.Out of scope answer.

So correct answer is D.

Commentator: When the popularity of a sport grows, the demand for talented players who perform consistently will far outstrip the supply. Fewer new players are entering ice hockey clubs than did previously. Some clubs have already started to respond to this situation by finding better ways to retain their current players. These tactics are a sure indicator that the popularity of ice hockey is growing.

Which of the following is the best criticism of the commentator’s reasoning?

A. The fact that clubs are making judicious provisions for an adverse situation that they consider a possible future threat does not mean that this adverse situation already exists.
Correct answer. It is criticising the commentator's reasoning directly.

B. The propensity of clubs to retain their players does not mean that the clubs were apathetic to players’ financial needs earlier.
Out of scope

C. Establishing that demand would exceed supply does not necessarily imply that supply would not exist at all.
Conclusion-Tactics lead to indicate popularity of ice hockey is growing.. so we need something related to the conclusion, not premise- so wrong option

D. A decline in the number of new entrants into the clubs does not imply that such a decline is unprecedented.
This option is all about premise and not about conclusion- Wrong choice

E. An increase in the fee paid to the current players would not guarantee better performance by these players.
Out of scope

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.