It is currently 16 Dec 2017, 07:09

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 954

Kudos [?]: 1936 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Apr 2014, 01:57
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

Bold Red : Is the premise on which conclusion mainly dependent.
Bold Blue : Is the conclusion.
Green : Is the extra information.

Bold red say 8/10 babies were given to parents who were acquainted by our staff.

Case 1 : 1 baby was given to each parent.
Case 2 : 8 babies were given to 1 parent(favoritism) and 2 babies to each 2 unacquainted parents.

Now validity of conclusion is hanging between case 1 and 2 if it is more towards case 1 then conclusion is valid, if it is more towards case 2 then representative will fail to prove accusation.

Option B here clearly clarifies that most of the qualified parents were acquainted by our staff.
And that's the assumption representative was holding in his/her statement.

Thus B is right.

I selected D initially but later I realized the gap in my reasoning and found B a valid option.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1936 [0], given: 229

Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 387

Kudos [?]: 354 [0], given: 139

Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V38
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Apr 2014, 12:12
The first thing that comes into the mind is: An option which raises doubt on whether most of the applicants were below the standards set by the govt/center.

Hastily Chose D. :(
Clearly fell into the trap by not reading the options carefully
_________________

Appreciate the efforts...KUDOS for all
Don't let an extra chromosome get you down..:P

Kudos [?]: 354 [0], given: 139

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 7 [1], given: 9

Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2014, 22:34
1
This post received
KUDOS
@@
egmat wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

A. The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.
B.Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
C.For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.
D.Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.
E.The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.


Hi folks,

Let me add my two cents to the discussion around option B.

Basically, an assumption can play either of the two roles: first, bridge the logical gap in the argument and second, defend against weakeners.

In our case, option B plays the second role i.e. it defends the argument against a weakener. What is that weakener? The weakener is that people acquainted with staff of the agency were allocated disproportionate number of babies.

In other words, the argument is saying that the decisions are guided solely by the best interest of children (and not whether the person is a personal acquaintance of staff member). So, for example, if it is shown that 100 personal acquaintances and 50 other people for the adoption process and more than 2/3rd of the children were placed with personal acquaintances, it would show a disproportionate allocation and weaken the argument that the process did not favor personal acquaintances.

We know from the passage that 8 of the last 10 babies have been placed with personal acquaintances, therefore in order to defend our argument of impartiality, we need to assume that around 80% of the people who applied for adoption were personal acquaintances. This is what is communicated by option statement B.

Hope this helps :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev



Hi Chiranjeev,

Option B states = Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

The Conclusion of the rep is = However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children.

Prethinking Assumption = To somehow state that that people who were given babies were NOT personally acquainted with the staff.
Option B states the complete opposite isn't it? It states that most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process. This shows favouritism isn't it?

According to me assumption should be = Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

Kudos [?]: 7 [1], given: 9

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT Date: 06-22-2013
GPA: 3.79
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2015, 11:32
What about C..if the time period during which this data collection was done had actually meant placements of 50 babies (say) then there could have been favoritism that we don't know of..

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 May 2014
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Schools: Yale '17
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2015, 17:17
I have a different way of arriving at the correct answer. I also picked the wrong answer choice (D), partly because I mislabeled the first sentence as a background/counterpremise and did not intuitively brainstorm the assumption cited in the correct answer or anything closely resembling it. In retrospect, I can justify the first sentence as a premise because it is stated by the same author who later states the premise and conclusion. In these cases in which a premise is a concession (stated by the same author who states the conclusion), and the conclusion is "Regardless of the [concession], [opposite claim] OR [different direction]", a key assumption would be [concession] <> [same direction claim] OR [opposite of the conclusion]. Having this assumption in my queue would have given me a better chance to spot the assumption in the correct answer choice.

In this case:
Premise/concession: people who knew staff adopted babies
Conclusion: no favoritism
Assumption: people who knew staff adopted babies <> favoritism
Correct answer: out of the people who passed adoption criteria, most knew staff

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2015, 17:30
The adoption agency representative concludes that they are not favor those who they know despite the fact that 8 out of 10 successful adoption applicants are those know they know previously. The criteria surpass & legal compliance are only prerequisites. In order to make that conclusion, they have to prove that 8 out of 10 is a fair rate.
A - OOS. The success of adoptions are not discussed here.
B - CORRECT. If yes, so 80% is a normal rate. If not, it is likely they are biased with acquaintances though there are more suitable applicants.
C - Irrelevant.
D - No impact on conclusion.
E - Explicitly stated.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Aug 2014
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2015, 04:25
egmat wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

A. The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.
B.Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.
C.For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.
D.Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.
E.The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.


Hi folks,

Let me add my two cents to the discussion around option B.

Basically, an assumption can play either of the two roles: first, bridge the logical gap in the argument and second, defend against weakeners.

In our case, option B plays the second role i.e. it defends the argument against a weakener. What is that weakener? The weakener is that people acquainted with staff of the agency were allocated disproportionate number of babies.

In other words, the argument is saying that the decisions are guided solely by the best interest of children (and not whether the person is a personal acquaintance of staff member). So, for example, if it is shown that 100 personal acquaintances and 50 other people for the adoption process and more than 2/3rd of the children were placed with personal acquaintances, it would show a disproportionate allocation and weaken the argument that the process did not favor personal acquaintances.

We know from the passage that 8 of the last 10 babies have been placed with personal acquaintances, therefore in order to defend our argument of impartiality, we need to assume that around 80% of the people who applied for adoption were personal acquaintances. This is what is communicated by option statement B.

Hope this helps :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev


But B is definitely not a must be true or is it?

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2013
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 115

Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2015, 21:52
sinhap07 wrote:
But B is definitely not a must be true or is it?


premise -
1. eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted
2. all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria

{GAP} it needs to be addressed by the assumption to make conclusion more believable

Conclusion - No favoritism

B (Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff) must be true.

Suppose there were 100 parents who surpassed the criteria for adoption, most (80, 90 etc) of them need to be acquainted to indicate 'no favoritism' as this big acquainted parents pool got 8 babies for adoption.

if its the other way, i.e. 80 to 90 parents were not acquainted BUT had surpassed the criteria, then it indicates favoritism as a big non-acquainted parents pool got only 2 babies for adoption.

hope this clarifies your doubt a bit.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 115

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2015
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 70

GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2015, 20:24
I did not chose B because I though its already stated that 8/10 people new agency people.
After reading, Mgmat explanation, I understood :(

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 70

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 22

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

Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GRE 1: 1400 Q800 V600
GPA: 3.68
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jan 2016, 02:16
The representative's claim is that 'mere personal acquaintance is not an indication of favoritism'. Her assumption is 'most eligible parents are personally acquainted with the staff'. Hence option B is the answer.

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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2016, 03:50
D.Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

Can anybody explain why not D?

If you negate this :

Only few prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

if that so, in other words, it is saying - well, what's new in that if prospective parents do meet the criteria. because most of the parents do meet the criteria. so there could be case that parents who are selected are not in interest of children.

D also break the conclusion apart. right?

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 342

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Feb 2015
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 70

GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2016, 04:30
abrakadabra21 wrote:
D.Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

Can anybody explain why not D?

If you negate this :

Only few prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

if that so, in other words, it is saying - well, what's new in that if prospective parents do meet the criteria. because most of the parents do meet the criteria. so there could be case that parents who are selected are not in interest of children.

D also break the conclusion apart. right?


NO, it does not.

Simply put it this way: is it really required that most parents do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption. No. What we care about is whether there is favouritism for parents who surpassed the criteria.

Even applying negation test: most parents DO meet the agency's criteria => it does not break the conclusion.
We know most parents are meeting min criteria. Can we say anything about favouring people who SURPASSED the criteria. We dont have any info.

Hope it helps.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 70

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Feb 2016
Posts: 104

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 208

Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 690 Q42 V47
GMAT 2: 710 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.57
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2016, 19:33
Archit143 wrote:
Doesnt B tells about their bias as the staffs were knowing that those ppl are reach before hand


I totally agree with the thought process however using elimination technique we boil down to B and D where B is the option which elaborates more on the premise. Hence according to Powerscore bible that is a good contender.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 208

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1366

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 1452

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2017, 17:27
choice A actually strengthens the conclusion.
choice B turns out to be the assumption.
choice D weaken
C,E are out of scope

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 1452

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 May 2017
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

CAT Tests
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2017, 21:03
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

How is answer 'C' wrong and 'B' right.
My logic - If the accusation on the author of favouritism is based on baby deliveries prior to the last 10 deliveries then the author's claim that the last 10 deliveries far surpassed the criteria becomes irrelevant. And the conclusion breaks up. As it is possible that the author was partial in deliveries before the last 10 deliveries.So as per me, author must assume that the accusation is based on the last 10 baby deliveries only.

Considering 'B', it is irrelevant whether the people knew the adoption personnel before beginning of application process or not. As in both the cases they could have equally influenced the personnel. So assuming or not assuming 'B' will not have an impact on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how is this line of thinking wrong?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2017
Posts: 113

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 14

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2017, 09:04
In my opinion, correct assumptions usually have these characteristics.

1. Tentative markers- In this case "parents who substantially surpasses....and most were ...acquainted with staff...
2. Direct and specific- The above tentative markers are directly and specifically related to the prompt, especially at the inflection point of the transition word- "However"

I believe pattern recognition is the key in the GMAT verbal as the time is limited. Most CR questions can be answered correctly by actively understanding the prompt which in turn aids pre-thinking the answer.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 14

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2017
Posts: 113

Kudos [?]: 19 [1], given: 14

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2017, 10:16
1
This post received
KUDOS
passivebit wrote:
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

How is answer 'C' wrong and 'B' right.
My logic - If the accusation on the author of favouritism is based on baby deliveries prior to the last 10 deliveries then the author's claim that the last 10 deliveries far surpassed the criteria becomes irrelevant. And the conclusion breaks up. As it is possible that the author was partial in deliveries before the last 10 deliveries.So as per me, author must assume that the accusation is based on the last 10 baby deliveries only.

Considering 'B', it is irrelevant whether the people knew the adoption personnel before beginning of application process or not. As in both the cases they could have equally influenced the personnel. So assuming or not assuming 'B' will not have an impact on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how is this line of thinking wrong?


Hi,
C is wrong because it's out of the scope of the assumption, as the number of deliveries is irrelevant to the argument. Remember the assumption is a bridge from the premise to the conclusion. The premise is that successful adopters were acquaintances, hence it may seem favoritism is perpetuated. However, the author tries to prove this as not true. Therefore the main assumption was that the premise of being acquainted with adopters was valid, otherwise, there is no need to prove anything. Hence the reason why B is correct.

As an addendum, since your mistake stems from choosing an out of scope answer, I recommend you consider such CR questions as you will a DS question in quant. In CR, the core structure of the argument (i.e conclusion and reasoning behind the premises) are usually enough to answer the questions, especially in inference, assumptions and bold faced questions. For the strengthening and weakening questions, they are also enough but may require additional evidence to make an answer correct.

I hope I am being clear. I believe the skills for verbal and quant are pretty complimentary. Once you see that connection you will become more confident and that should carry over in your overall score. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Best,

Kudos [?]: 19 [1], given: 14

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 May 2017
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

CAT Tests
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2017, 19:14
rulingbear wrote:
passivebit wrote:
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

How is answer 'C' wrong and 'B' right.
My logic - If the accusation on the author of favouritism is based on baby deliveries prior to the last 10 deliveries then the author's claim that the last 10 deliveries far surpassed the criteria becomes irrelevant. And the conclusion breaks up. As it is possible that the author was partial in deliveries before the last 10 deliveries.So as per me, author must assume that the accusation is based on the last 10 baby deliveries only.

Considering 'B', it is irrelevant whether the people knew the adoption personnel before beginning of application process or not. As in both the cases they could have equally influenced the personnel. So assuming or not assuming 'B' will not have an impact on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how is this line of thinking wrong?


Hi,
C is wrong because it's out of the scope of the assumption, as the number of deliveries is irrelevant to the argument. Remember the assumption is a bridge from the premise to the conclusion. The premise is that successful adopters were acquaintances, hence it may seem favoritism is perpetuated. However, the author tries to prove this as not true. Therefore the main assumption was that the premise of being acquainted with adopters was valid, otherwise, there is no need to prove anything. Hence the reason why B is correct.

As an addendum, since your mistake stems from choosing an out of scope answer, I recommend you consider such CR questions as you will a DS question in quant. In CR, the core structure of the argument (i.e conclusion and reasoning behind the premises) are usually enough to answer the questions, especially in inference, assumptions and bold faced questions. For the strengthening and weakening questions, they are also enough but may require additional evidence to make an answer correct.

I hope I am being clear. I believe the skills for verbal and quant are pretty complimentary. Once you see that connection you will become more confident and that should carry over in your overall score. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Best,


Hello,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. You are right that out of scope points cannot be considered.

But I don't see 'c' as out of scope. The representative says that the last 10 parents far exceeded the adoption criteria. So we need to know whether the accusation is based on those 10 adoptions only or adoptions occuring previously as well. Let us say, 50 adoptions occured, in that case we don't know if there were any partiality on the previous 40 as well. So, if we know that the scope of adoptions is limited to only 10 children, we duly know that they were based on proper adoption policy. So, this strengthens the representative's point.

Considering the option 'B', it is itself based on an assumption that there is a correlation between prior relationship and partiality i.e. if someone is friends with someone, he or she has to be partial towards the other one. So an assumption should not be based on another assumption. Also, as per option 'B' if parents are acquainted with staff before the adoption process, chances of partiality is less compared to they becoming friends during the process. Though in real life it is correct, but as per GMAT this is still an assumption. so we have 2 assumptions ingrained in option 'B'.

What do you think about this?

Thanks,

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2017
Posts: 113

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 14

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2017, 21:34
passivebit wrote:
rulingbear wrote:
passivebit wrote:
Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

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

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

How is answer 'C' wrong and 'B' right.
My logic - If the accusation on the author of favouritism is based on baby deliveries prior to the last 10 deliveries then the author's claim that the last 10 deliveries far surpassed the criteria becomes irrelevant. And the conclusion breaks up. As it is possible that the author was partial in deliveries before the last 10 deliveries.So as per me, author must assume that the accusation is based on the last 10 baby deliveries only.

Considering 'B', it is irrelevant whether the people knew the adoption personnel before beginning of application process or not. As in both the cases they could have equally influenced the personnel. So assuming or not assuming 'B' will not have an impact on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how is this line of thinking wrong?


Hi,
C is wrong because it's out of the scope of the assumption, as the number of deliveries is irrelevant to the argument. Remember the assumption is a bridge from the premise to the conclusion. The premise is that successful adopters were acquaintances, hence it may seem favoritism is perpetuated. However, the author tries to prove this as not true. Therefore the main assumption was that the premise of being acquainted with adopters was valid, otherwise, there is no need to prove anything. Hence the reason why B is correct.

As an addendum, since your mistake stems from choosing an out of scope answer, I recommend you consider such CR questions as you will a DS question in quant. In CR, the core structure of the argument (i.e conclusion and reasoning behind the premises) are usually enough to answer the questions, especially in inference, assumptions and bold faced questions. For the strengthening and weakening questions, they are also enough but may require additional evidence to make an answer correct.

I hope I am being clear. I believe the skills for verbal and quant are pretty complimentary. Once you see that connection you will become more confident and that should carry over in your overall score. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Best,


Hello,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. You are right that out of scope points cannot be considered.

But I don't see 'c' as out of scope. The representative says that the last 10 parents far exceeded the adoption criteria. So we need to know whether the accusation is based on those 10 adoptions only or adoptions occurring previously as well. Let us say, 50 adoptions occurred, in that case we don't know if there were any partiality on the previous 40 as well. So, if we know that the scope of adoptions is limited to only 10 children, we duly know that they were based on proper adoption policy. So, this strengthens the representative's point.

Considering the option 'B', it is itself based on an assumption that there is a correlation between prior relationship and partiality i.e. if someone is friends with someone, he or she has to be partial towards the other one. So an assumption should not be based on another assumption. Also, as per option 'B' if parents are acquainted with staff before the adoption process, chances of partiality is less compared to they becoming friends during the process. Though in real life it is correct, but as per GMAT this is still an assumption. so we have 2 assumptions ingrained in option 'B'.

What do you think about this?

Thanks,


Hi Passivebit,

I understand your point. However, I think you are may be extrapolating too much from the question and this is where it is easy to fall into the out of scope trap. First, option C is out of scope because it's dealing with "during" the process. This is unnecessary, acquaintances could be at any time, and logically as you pointed out acquaintances in this context is probably people known before the process. Second, the 8/10 number is just confirming the assumption i.e that it's true that most adopters were acquaintances. Thirdly, my observation from GMAT questions is that they often mirror the real world albeit in a limited scope and this applies to all parts of the exam including quant, so my 2 cents is when you are faced with a tough question, go for the real life logic after you have exploited all options. Therefore as you rightly suggest we may have 2 assumptions in option B, if this is true, then option B is most likely correct as we are looking for an assumption.

Also when you have to think of scenarios for an option like you described above for option C, that option will often be wrong, especially on inferences, assumption and bold faced CRs. I am of the opinion that the answer is usually straight forward and directly embedded in the question. You just have to match the prompt with the options. Finally, remember that you have less than 2 minutes to solve this problem and I believe the problems are written to be solved within that time frame albeit in a convoluted way sometimes.

Back to the question, on a general level, the main reason why the author is writing is to argue that the agency was impartial, and the assumption is that people think the agency is because 8/10 of successful adopters were acquaintances. The author is simply writing back to say those 8 acquaintances, along with the other 2 adopters surpassed the legal requirement and that the agency decision has the best interests of the children in mind. Let's see if we can parse the prompt again.

It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process (Assumption). However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism (Argument); our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children (Strengthener 1). Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy. (Strengthener 2).

I hope this was helpful, I understand it's a bit complicated, however, the assumption is direct and the options are full of trap, hence why this is a 700 level question I think. Anecdotally, I have score 51 in my GMATprep verbal practice and have come across a question of the same structure and similar answer, so I believe it may be helpful to really understand it.

Lastly, I commend your efforts to try to grasp the reasoning behind an answer. Best of luck, let me know if I can help again and thanks for the Kudo!

Best
Rulingbear

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 14

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 74

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2017, 04:57
(B) cannot be the answer because it is already stated in the question. Assumption questions can't do this, otherwise it is not an assumption. Help would be appreciated.
_________________

D-Day: November 18th, 2017

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 74

Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our   [#permalink] 07 Sep 2017, 04:57

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 42 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.