All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent man

this questions shows that outside knowledge cannot be applied to gmat.
test takers should only stick to/with what is written in the passage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make this question better we should modify a sentence little

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach --> necessary condition
All of the athletes who have spent many hours training under an elite coach will win a medal in competition --> sufficient condition

Of course the logic in the reasoning is a bit flawed or the question could have been better framed.

But B will not be the answer.

There are 2 requirements - a) many hours of training and b) trg under elite coach.
Now the hours one spends is not inter related to the hours the other spends. It may be both spend many hours but others have spent lesser number of hours training when compared to Mike. But still both meet the requirement (a)

Hiii

The only thing matters here is whether Michael will be able to convert several hours of practice under elite coach into a success in tournament.

The supporting premise is ...who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach.

If he doesn't, the argument conclusion falls apart.

Hence E.

Negation is fun!!! This is actually the first time I am applying negation.

E need not be true.

Neg C breaks the conclusion as it contradicts the given argument.

There are three parts which are important in this sentence -

Premise: All of the athletes who will win a medal in the competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach.

Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches;

Conclusion: therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in the competition. ( this is based on the assumption that he will spend "many hours training under the coach")

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

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.[Out of Scope: No mention of injuries]

(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.[Out of Scope: Nothing has been mentioned about the comparison of hours spent by others in training. ]

(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours. [This is in line with our pre-thinking and has to be the CORRECT answer.]

(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive. [Out of scope : No mention of productiveness in the passage]

(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.[Out of Scope: No mention of performance comparison in training and competition]

Correct answer: C

Since the question explicitly specifies to win a medal one needs to have elite coach + many hours training under him .. hence since Michael already has an elite coach he needs many hours of training to win the medal. Hence C

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

I think it is the conditional reasoning
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach
= The athletes who win a medal in competition, they must have spent many hours training under an elite coach.
Sufficient condition: win a medal in competition
Necessary condition: study
=> Every answer choice that does not state this necessary condition will necessarily serve as assumption for the conclusion. For example,
A. Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training => But if he did not spend enough time training for the competition, he won't win
While it could be true, it does not have to be true.
Hope it helps!

I think it is the conditional reasoning
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach
= The athletes who win a medal in competition, they must have spent many hours training under an elite coach.
Sufficient condition: win a medal in competition
Necessary condition: many hours training
=> Any answer choices that does not state this necessary condition will necessarily serve as assumption for the conclusion. For example,
A. Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training => But if he did not spend enough time training for the competition, he won't win
While it could be true, it does not have to be true.
Kudos if it helps

(E) Does not necessarily have to be true. It is possible that he does not perform well in the competition but he still win the medal because of the elite level of his ability.

Hi,
I'm confused !!!
Between B and C, I chose B because of this logic:
Suppose Mike is coached under an elite trainer and does spend many hours. The information in the passage tells us that Mike needs to spend many hours training . But is that sufficient enough to guarantee that he would win? What about his competitors? What if they practice longer than him? What if Mike spends half the time they've spent training? The logic only talks about the hours required in order to win the competition so.. what's wrong?
Please correct my logic if you find any flaws
GMATNinja, nightblade354

Ok , so we can't infer details like this directly, but we can give a sure shot answer just from E.
Understood

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.