The Green Ensemble, a nonprofit theater group, has always

CONFUSED B/W A and C.....BECAUSE IT SAYS THE ENSEMBLE ALREADY ANNOUNCED ITS SCHEDULE FOR NEXT YEAR.....

A is the answer.
There are no facts to support drawing a conclusion for either B, C, D or E.

Sorry, I don't agree with your explanation. Normally one organization should get the fund before issue the schedule of next year, at least get the confirmation from sponsor.

It is A.
The second sentence states that Green Ensemble "would have been forced to disband this year if any of its corporate sponsors had withdrawn their financial support". We know that is playing this year so none of the Green Ensemble's corporate sponsors withdrew their financial support of the group this year

this is an inference question and the answer has to drawn from whatever is mentioned in the stimulus without any assumption/reasoning et all.Just what is mentioned.

Question asks for which statement we can properly infer from passage.
For that case A is the best choice.

The Green Ensemble, a nonprofit theater group, has always been financially dependent on contributions from corporations and would have been forced to disband this year if any of its corporate sponsors had withdrawn their financial support. But the Green Ensemble has not only been able to continue in operation throughout this year, but also announced its schedule for the next year.

Which of the following is a conclusion that can be properly drawn from the above information?

a) None of the Green Ensemble's corporate sponsors withdrew their financial support of the group this year.

b) Earlier this year, the group found new non-coprate sponsors and other sources of funding for the next year, making the group less dependent on corporate sponsors for financial support.

c) During this year, the corporate funding for the group almost doubled so that they could announce their programs for the next year also.

d) The Green Ensemble started using more risque themes in its plays so that there will be more public support and less reliance on corporate sponsorship.

e) The members of the Green Ensemble agreed to take a substantial cut in their salaries in order to continue into the next year.

I would have picked (C) too but reading through everyone's replies I understood that the question in hand is that Green Ensemble was able to continue its operation this year and that was only because none of the corporations withdrew their financial contributions.

The fact that GE announced their schedule for next year does not say that it will be able to continue its operation next year. I think that information was to mislead people like us to pick the wrong answer.

A is very clear here. Scope is whether any of its corporate sponsors had withdrawn their financial support and not how much money increased. Passage is extreme, therefore, we can have extreme answer choince

no Idea y A is answer!! i still feel C is better than A

Originally I picked C as the answer but now feel that 'A' is the answer as we are asked for a conclusion (infer) and C provides a 'premise' and not a conclusion onto why the club was able to publish the schedule for next year...

Any thoughts??

Ans : A.

yes in inference/conclusion question u cn nt get the information frm outside,that has to be concluded only frm the
premises in the argument.

A
It is a gap you can almost sense and prephrase :D

Hey All,

I got a request to answer this question. Please, everyone, feel free to private message me if you'd like to follow up on some question threads and put in my two cents. Anyway, let's do this!

The Green Ensemble, a nonprofit theater group, has always been financially dependent on contributions from corporations and would have been forced to disband this year if any of its corporate sponsors had withdrawn their financial support. But the Green Ensemble has not only been able to continue in operation throughout this year, but also announced its schedule for the next year.

This is a draw a conclusion question, so we're only given premises (facts), and have to come up a conclusion. I'd say one conclusion jumps out at us right away.

Premise: GE would have disbanded this year if any corporate sponsors with withdrew support
GE has continued operating and announced operation next year

Conclusion: NO corporate sponsors withdrew support

DO NOT let yourself get distracted by that whole thing involving next year's operation. WE CANNOT infer anything about that, because the first premise ONLY tells us about what would have happened THIS year if sponsors withdrew support. Also, remember that "Draw A Conclusion" questions always involve staying REALLY close to the premises. We are NOT trying to find an answer choice that explains how the company is staying open this year and next. We are merely trying to find an answer choice that MUST BE TRUE based on the info we got.

Which of the following is a conclusion that can be properly drawn from the above information?

a) None of the Green Ensemble's corporate sponsors withdrew their financial support of the group this year.
ANSWER: Looks good! If any of the sponsors had withdrawn support, they would have folded. Done.

b) Earlier this year, the group found new non-coprate sponsors and other sources of funding for the next year, making the group less dependent on corporate sponsors for financial support.
PROBLEM: Sure, this provides one possible explanation for how the ensemble stayed open, but we don't know if that's true. (Any more than we know they didn't stay open because they won the lottery). If we don't KNOW IT IS TRUE, it cannot be the answer.

c) During this year, the corporate funding for the group almost doubled so that they could announce their programs for the next year also.
PROBLEM: AGAIN, this provides an explanation both for how they stayed open this year and announced programs for next year. BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE. The premises don't support this possibility over the aforementioned lottery win.


d) The Green Ensemble started using more risque themes in its plays so that there will be more public support and less reliance on corporate sponsorship.
PROBLEM: Same as above, but even worse. This one doesn't refer to this year specifically, and talks more about the future (notice the future tense verb). This would never explain what happened this year, and even if it did, it would still be only one possible explanation.


e) The members of the Green Ensemble agreed to take a substantial cut in their salaries in order to continue into the next year.
PROBLEM: Same as all of the above. This COULD explain why they stayed open, but there's no way to know.

Hope that helps!

-tommy

A it should be as very well explained by Tommy

This EASY qn got me. LSAT b@stards..
The 2nd sentence talks about losing sponsors and clearly says that Green Ensemble can't continue if it loses a sponsor.

I didnt read that sentence at all, because I was in a hurry to finish the 25 questions within 60 min. I did and got 21/25 but this was an easy one I missed because I INCORRECTLY (would have been correct, had it not been for the 2nd sentence) assumed that it is the amount of money & not the number of sponsors that keeps Green Ensemble afloat.

Missing difficult qns, dont make me feel as bad as missing EASY ones. This one hurt..

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.