Technological education is worsening. People between eighteen and

(A) If all young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology.
Correct: This option clearly indicates that if Young people are entrusted with decisions on public refrenda, they must know about technology.
(B) Thorough studies of technological issues and innovations should be made a required part of the public and private school curriculum.
Incorrect: You may observe that the question stem states about age group of 18-24, and here we are talking of public/pvt schools. Another issues with the option is it brings Innovation into the picture. Technology and Innovation cannot be intermixed.Right !!
(C) It should be suggested that prospective voters attend applied science courses in order to acquire a minimal competency in technical matters.
Incorrect: Voters --> Out of Scope.
(D) If young people are not to be overly influenced by famous technocrats, they must increase their knowledge of pure science.
Incorrect: This option brings a new premise to the conclusion. i.e getting influenced by technocrats. Beware of this option as you may get caught by the second part, which is true.
(E) On public referenda issues, young people tend to confuse real or probable technologies with impossible ideals.
Incorrect: This can be an inference, but cannot qualify for conclusion.
I hope, I am able to make the reasoning..

This is an interesting question. I reached 'A' With POE - i.e. not because 'A' sound correct to me but because I was able to eliminate all other options. Here is my thought process:

(A) If all young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology.
==> This may not be OR May be true. Hence keep the option - don't eliminate it.

(B) Thorough studies of technological issues and innovations should be made a required part of the public and private school curriculum.
==> May be true but definitely out of scope. Public and private school are out of scope, curriculum is out of scope. Moreover, with 'should' the this option is tending towards extremity.

(C) It should be suggested that prospective voters attend applied science courses in order to acquire a minimal competency in technical matters.
==>Out of scope: Applied science is out of scope, minimal competency is out of scope.Moreover, with 'should' the this option is tending towards extremity.

(D) If young people are not to be overly influenced by famous technocrats, they must increase their knowledge of pure science.
==>Out of scope: technocrats - out of scope.Moreover, with 'must' the this option is tending towards extremity.

(E) On public referenda issues, young people tend to confuse real or probable technologies with impossible ideals.
==>Out of scope:Impossible Ideals - out of scope.
_________________

B IMO.
I narrowed the choices down to A & B.

A is also more of a premise or an inference from the last sentence.
C --> lets not make it complicated by bringing in prospective voters etc. We are talking about technology education in context to the public referenda, lets have the conclusion pointing to education.
D is out of scope
E is more or less a premise.

What is the OA....Plz post the OA along with the questions.

I would definitely choose A.

B is not correct. Its a trick answer. Given the passage alone, the proper conclusion is not that the only way to solve the problem is to teach technology better in school. There is no wording indicating this. It does suggest that technological issues are not taught well in school, but, again, this does not suggest that school is the only way to fix the problem.

A more properly gives the conclusion. Take for example the argument break down;

Technology education is getting worse.

Student coming out of school are more likely to be bad with technology than older adults.

Public referenda will involve technological issues.

Therefore, if all young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology.

Notice that this is much more broad than B and better encompasses the information from the passage.

Could you please confirm the OA?

Hope that helps,

Jared

Hi,I have an issue with option A. The reason I eliminated it was because it uses "all" and then "most." How can all young people vote diligently, if only most are technologically educated?

Am I thinking along the wrong lines??

Posted from my mobile device

Technological education is worsening. People between eighteen and twenty-four, who are just emerging from their formal education, are more likely to be technologically illiterate than somewhat older adults. And yet, issues for public referenda will increasingly involve aspects of technology.

Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?


(A) If all young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology.
Only this point talks about inadequacy in learning.

(B) Thorough studies of technological issues and innovations should be made a required part of the public and private school curriculum.

OSP

(C) It should be suggested that prospective voters attend applied science courses in order to acquire a minimal competency in technical matters.

OSP

(D) If young people are not to be overly influenced by famous technocrats, they must increase their knowledge of pure science.

OSP

(E) On public referenda issues, young people tend to confuse real or probable technologies with impossible ideals.

OSP

Hi….


Let’s take an example:

Say there are 100 students in a class.
In the context of GMAT CR:

“All” students would mean all 100.

“Most” students would mean any number between 51 to 100. (“most” means more than 50% and upto 100%)

Thus, “most” could mean all.

However, choice A does not have “most”. It talks about “many”.

“Many” in GMAT CR refers to more than 3- 4 and could mean “all”.

Thus, “many” is a part of “all”.

For more on the implication of quantifiers such as “all”, “most”, “some”, etc click on the link below:

https://blog.gmatwhiz.com/2020/01/15/qu ... most-some/
_________________

Tricky !!!!!!!!
Young people dont know much about technology , increasingly the public referenda includes issues regarding technology.



(A) If all young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology. Many of all will need to take effort. Makes sens hold.

(B) Thorough studies of technological issues and innovations should be made a required part of the public and private school curriculum. SO ???????? Out

(C) It should be suggested that prospective voters attend applied science courses in order to acquire a minimal competency in technical matters. Who will suggest .. how is this relevant ???? Also its not about young people not able to vote because they dont know how to use the machines/technology . The argument says ASPECTS oftechnology not application of technology on voting. Out

(D) If young people are not to be overly influenced by famous technocrats, they must increase their knowledge of pure science. Who ? Elon Musk ? What year is it ? Out

(E) On public referenda issues, young people tend to confuse real or probable technologies with impossible ideals. We cant know that y the argument. What if the young people are amish and they have never been exposed to technology , then this will work ortherwise ??? lol doesnt make sense. Out

A seems best.
Lesson : Extreme options are not always wrong.
_________________

Are we sure that this is an official GMAT problem? Something bothers me about this Inference question….

Clearly, the best answer is A. “Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn” suggests we are looking for a pretty solid inference, if not a 100% must-be-true type inference.

Although there exists support for answer A in the passage, it would be problematic to say that A would be “properly drawn.”

Younger people are MORE LIKELY to be technologically illiterate than somewhat older adults.

Issues for public referenda will increasingly involve aspects of technology.

A is the properly drawn conclusion: If ALL young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology.

The logical fallacy in this line of reasoning is using relative/proportional values to makes a conclusion involving a number or value.

For all we know, both groups are very technologically literate. The somewhat older group has a technological literacy rate of 95%. The younger, 18 to 24 group has a technological literacy rate of 90%.

Is the younger group of people, who are just emerging from their education, more likely to be technologically illiterate? YES

However, could we say that if ALL these young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda (assuming that most public referenda will include aspects of technology), that MANY of them must learn more about technology? NO - 90% are technologically literate.

In other words, just because group A is more likely than group B to have characteristic X

——> does NOT necessarily mean that group A will have a GREAT NUMBER of people who have characteristic X.

Is A the best answer? By far.

Can we say that the conclusion provided by A can be “properly drawn” from the statements provided? I’m not sure….



Posted from my mobile device­

Nope, B is way too extreme. You cannot reach such conclusion with given information.

Guys isn't A too strong. We are talking about a particular group of young people within a certain age and the answer states 'All'. I feel the conclusion is too extreme. Also, it indicates the word 'Should' learn technology. The premise says that "issues for public referenda will increasingly involve aspects of technology".

Right after the "yet," we need a conclusion. Education on tech is so bad that young people are kind of tech illiterate. So if young people are to participate referenda, which involves more and more tech, hence A is the winner.

@KarishamB ,
I marked A because it relates training with illiteracy, but I still find E as a very good option. Can you pls help

A weird question in my opinion A is definitely the best pick of the lot
If all young people are to make informed decisions on public referenda, many of them must learn more about technology.
many of them - can be 100% of the people
all young people - is 100% of the people

Hi Experts,

Please advise why Option B is incorrect

Thanks

@KittyDoodles

­(Not a expert answer) it's simple to observe that the population band is technologically illiterate ( they don't need to become technology experts by throughly studing technology )

B. Thorough studies of technological issues and innovations should be made a required part of the public and private school curriculum.

The population between the particular age is likely to be illeterate ( means more people are illterate, so for all people to be involved actively in public referendum a lot of people must know a decent level of tech ) A  Correct­