It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 01:02

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 646 [6], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 20:58
6
KUDOS
44
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (01:31) correct 56% (01:51) wrong based on 1885 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 646 [6], given: 70

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2311

Kudos [?]: 9024 [7], given: 335

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

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2013, 19:15
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 9024 [7], given: 335

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 832

Kudos [?]: 1593 [7], given: 197

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2013, 15:20
7
KUDOS
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.

here is OE

(1) Identify the Question Type
The word "assumption" in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

(2) Deconstruct the Argument
According to the argument, the adoption agency has awarded the majority of its recent placements to parents who were personally acquainted with agency staff. The argument denies that this discrepancy is a sign of favoritism toward certain applicants, on the grounds that all ten placements were made with parents who surpassed the agency's (and the law's) criteria for adoption.

(3) State the Goal
On Find the Assumption questions, we're looking for something that the author must believe to be true in order to draw the given conclusion. The argument concludes that the agency did not engage in favoritism because all of the chosen parents surpassed the adoption criteria. However, the argument is also assuming that, among all well-qualified applicants, there was no favoritism toward individuals who were personally acquainted with the agency staff.

For example, suppose there were 100 fully qualified families and only 8 of them were personally acquainted with the staff; those 8 happened to be chosen, while only 2 of 92 qualified applicants who were not acquainted with staff were chosen. If that were true, it would undermine the author's claim that the agency did not show any favoritism. The author must be assuming that this is NOT the case.

(4) Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The argument is concerned only with whether a bias toward personally acquainted applicants is present or absent; it is not concerned with whether such a bias may, in fact, lead to placements that are more successful in the long term.

(B) CORRECT. For the argument to establish lack of bias toward certain applicants, the proportion of "previously acquainted" people among those applicants chosen for placement must reflect the corresponding proportion among all applicants. In other words, if eight out of the ten parents actually chosen were personally acquainted with the staff, then a similar majority of all applicants should have been similarly acquainted with the staff. Alternatively, use the negation test. If this statement is false, then the majority of qualified applicants were in fact unacquainted with agency staff – a situation in which the placement of eight of ten babies with personally acquainted applicants is a clear signal of bias. Since the negation of this statement defeats the argument, the original statement must be assumed.

(C) The argument is concerned only with determining whether a bias is demonstrated by the agency's ten most recent placements; it does not involve the idea of whether those placements were made at a typical rate.

(D) Applicants who do not meet the criteria are irrelevant; the argument is concerned with determining whether a bias exists among fully qualified applicants. Therefore, the relative proportion of unqualified candidates among all applicants does not affect the argument.

(E) Although all ten of the agency's most recent placements may indeed have been placed with parents who "far surpassed" the criteria, there is nothing in the argument to suggest that all successful applicants must substantially surpass those criteria (as opposed to simply meeting or fulfilling them).
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Kudos [?]: 1593 [7], given: 197

Senior Manager
Status: Final Lap
Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 282

Kudos [?]: 398 [3], given: 85

Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.54
WE: Project Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2013, 07:02
3
KUDOS
Sachin9 wrote:
I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

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.

I think by the negating process :
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process , WHICH means that the blue part of the premise will not be valid at all :

Hence, B is the answer ..
_________________

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.

Kudos [?]: 398 [3], given: 85

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 335 [1], given: 269

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2012, 22:44
1
KUDOS
Archit143 wrote:
pls help wid dis one i am finding it really difficult can any expert help on this

+1 B

Hi Archit

First of all, I am no expert.

Premise 1 – 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.
Premise 2 – 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.

Conclusion – there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism

Assumption are made to connect the premise with conclusion

Now, if you think, option B fits well. It connects Premise 2 and the Conclusion. They have stated in the argument that the new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy and that they also knew 8 of them. In the end they have concluded that there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism only if the 8 selected parents were also surpassing the criteria.

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Kudos [?]: 335 [1], given: 269

Intern
Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Posts: 20

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

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

### Show Tags

27 Dec 2014, 23:34
1
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

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2017
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 13

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

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2017, 11:16
1
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 [?]: 15 [1], given: 13

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2012, 14:37
pls help wid dis one i am finding it really difficult can any expert help on this

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 70

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2012, 15:12
Doesnt B tells about their bias as the staffs were knowing that those ppl are reach before hand

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 70

Director
Status: Gonna rock this time!!!
Joined: 22 Jul 2012
Posts: 509

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 562

Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q43 V34
GMAT 2: 630 Q47 V29
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2013, 05:45
I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

_________________

hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.

Who says you need a 700 ?Check this out : http://gmatclub.com/forum/who-says-you-need-a-149706.html#p1201595

My GMAT Journey : http://gmatclub.com/forum/end-of-my-gmat-journey-149328.html#p1197992

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 562

Director
Status: Gonna rock this time!!!
Joined: 22 Jul 2012
Posts: 509

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 562

Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q43 V34
GMAT 2: 630 Q47 V29
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2013, 07:09
Rock750 wrote:
Sachin9 wrote:
I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

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.

I think by the negating process :
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process , WHICH means that the blue part of the premise will not be valid at all :

Hence, B is the answer ..

you are right, but how do we decide what is to be negated?
_________________

hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies.

Who says you need a 700 ?Check this out : http://gmatclub.com/forum/who-says-you-need-a-149706.html#p1201595

My GMAT Journey : http://gmatclub.com/forum/end-of-my-gmat-journey-149328.html#p1197992

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 562

Senior Manager
Status: Final Lap
Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 282

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 85

Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.54
WE: Project Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2013, 07:15
you are right, but how do we decide what is to be negated?[/quote]

You should focus on the meaning rather than the negation technique itself ...
_________________

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 85

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2013, 07:35
Confused indeed.

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

Negate it:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

If most were not known to STAFF members then yes the conclusion holds strongly that there is no favoritism.Then isn't this option(After negation) supporting the conclusion despite weakening it.
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 322

Senior Manager
Status: Final Lap
Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 282

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 85

Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.54
WE: Project Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 02:08
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Confused indeed.

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

Negate it:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

If most were not known to STAFF members then yes the conclusion holds strongly that there is no favoritism.Then isn't this option(After negation) supporting the conclusion despite weakening it.

Hi targetgmatchotu
We are looking here for what been assumed in this argument.
The argument stated that EIGHT/ TEN (Most Of them) last babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
After negation, B becomes : most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process... Is the argument still valid ?? No ..

Hope it's clear
_________________

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 85

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 20:48
Rock750 wrote:
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Confused indeed.

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

Negate it:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

If most were not known to STAFF members then yes the conclusion holds strongly that there is no favoritism.Then isn't this option(After negation) supporting the conclusion despite weakening it.

Hi targetgmatchotu
We are looking here for what been assumed in this argument.
The argument stated that EIGHT/ TEN (Most Of them) last babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
After negation, B becomes : most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process... Is the argument still valid ?? No ..

Hope it's clear

Conclusion – there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism

(B).most were personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process...
~(B).most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process...

If most were not ACQ with agency staff , doesn't it supports the conclusion as mentioned above that "there is no truth of the accusation of facoritism".

Plz tell where I am going wrong.

Rgds,
Saurabh
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 322

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2013
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2013, 15:38
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Rock750 wrote:
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Confused indeed.

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

Negate it:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

If most were not known to STAFF members then yes the conclusion holds strongly that there is no favoritism.Then isn't this option(After negation) supporting the conclusion despite weakening it.

Hi targetgmatchotu
We are looking here for what been assumed in this argument.
The argument stated that EIGHT/ TEN (Most Of them) last babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
After negation, B becomes : most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process... Is the argument still valid ?? No ..

Hope it's clear

Conclusion – there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism

(B).most were personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process...
~(B).most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process...

If most were not ACQ with agency staff , doesn't it supports the conclusion as mentioned above that "there is no truth of the accusation of facoritism".

Plz tell where I am going wrong.

Rgds,
Saurabh

i personally agree with you @targetgmat option B only makes sense when negated..so i dont know why it is an option to the question when it is either negated or just as it is.

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Status: Final Lap
Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Posts: 282

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 85

Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.54
WE: Project Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2013, 17:49
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Rock750 wrote:
targetgmatchotu wrote:
Confused indeed.

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

Negate it:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

If most were not known to STAFF members then yes the conclusion holds strongly that there is no favoritism.Then isn't this option(After negation) supporting the conclusion despite weakening it.

Hi targetgmatchotu
We are looking here for what been assumed in this argument.
The argument stated that EIGHT/ TEN (Most Of them) last babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
After negation, B becomes : most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process... Is the argument still valid ?? No ..

Hope it's clear

Conclusion – there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism

(B).most were personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process...
~(B).most were NOT personally acquainted with agencey staff before begining the app process...

If most were not ACQ with agency staff , doesn't it supports the conclusion as mentioned above that "there is no truth of the accusation of facoritism".

Plz tell where I am going wrong.

Rgds,
Saurabh

This option , when negated, neither supports nor weakens the argument.
It just tell us that we need the option as an assumption to make the argument logically correct because negate it and you will destroy the argument. That's how the technique works, you need just to check if the argument is still ok when negating an option ..
_________________

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.

Kudos [?]: 398 [0], given: 85

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2013, 21:02
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.

Green: Conclusion
Blue: Supporting Premise
Red: Counter premise
B.Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

B: Supporting the counter premise by saying that of all those ten babies' parents most obey to counter premise,thereby weakening the conclusion.
Still unclear how can it be by any chance a assumption .
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 322

Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 34

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

### Show Tags

16 Jan 2013, 07:49
Negation of B : most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

if most were not ACQNTed before, then the ACQntance must have happened during the adoption process .

if there is no favoritism in the process , then either ALL the parents would have got ACNqted or none . but only most parents did.
some sort of favoritism is thr.

So the argument doesnt hold true.. ans - B

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 34

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 331

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 291

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

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2013, 21:30
I don't understand. Isn't B simply restating the first sentence of the argument. How is it an assumption? Aren't '8/10' and 'most' synonymous?

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 291

Re: Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our   [#permalink] 08 Oct 2013, 21:30

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 42 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by