Nevernevergiveup wrote:

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.

(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.

(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.

(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.

(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.

Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?

...

Hi,

the logic of the main statement itself is flawed..

The Q would have been better had it asked for "flaw in the logical reasoning"....

The logic in this Q is ..

all the As will have done B..

so since C is doing B, he will be A..

all the As will have done B.. does not mean all doing B will be As..

But taking the Q as it is, answer will be C..

For becoming a medallist .. it is necessary that many hours

(requirement 1) of trg under elite coach

(requirement 2)..

we know he has coached under elite coach..

so if he has to win a medal, he has to have trained for many hours..

@

veritasprep ,

VeritasPrepKarishma ,

VeritasPrepBrian ,

VeritasPrepBrandon..

It would be better if you change

therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition. to

micheal wins a medal in competition, to make the Questin logical

_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372

2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor