Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 13:49 It is currently 21 May 2024, 13:49
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more rolle

Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33996 [4]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Posts: 109
Own Kudos [?]: 181 [2]
Given Kudos: 5
Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Posts: 231
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [1]
Given Kudos: 85
Location: India
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65406 [1]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more rolle [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Data Insights (DI) Butler 2023-24 [Question #140, Date: Dec-04-2023] [[url=https://gmatclub.com/forum/data-insights-di-butler-419150.html]Click here for Details]

An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more roller coaster. It is considering two options: a roller coaster based on popular action film and one based on a popular children’s television series. However, studies show that only young children are fans of the television series, so the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.

Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the argument, and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would provide significant logical support for the required assumption.

­
I think the question is fine.

Premise: Studies show that only young children are fans of the television series,

Conclusion: the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.

There is a gap here. The premise tells us that only young children are fans of tv series, not adults. We are concluding from that that the park will be better served by basing it on the movie. Why? Why is it not ok to cater to young children through the roller coaster? The roller coaster could very well cater to young children successfully. What is the problem?

The assumption here is that the roller coaster will be predominantly considered by adults, not young children. Only then does it make sense that the park will be better served by not basing it on the tv series.

Assumption: Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children.
"Most" means the "key demography" is not young children, that's all.

Something that supports the assumption: Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters
(
and hence they will not consider riding it)
Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Posts: 231
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [2]
Given Kudos: 85
Location: India
An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more rolle [#permalink]
2
Kudos
KarishmaB wrote:

­Hi  [url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=KarishmaB]KarishmaB

I still don't see why ''MOST'' is REQUIRED, and without it the argument won't work. Below is my reasoning:

Premise: Studies show that ONLY young children are fans of the television series,
Conclusion: the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.

Television series has ONLY young children FANS = 10 million
Popular action film = Both adults and children are Fans(Young children = 10 million, Adults = 9 million)
If that is the case then arguments still works fine, right?  Negating the assumption doesn't even weaken the argument, because amusement park is still ''better served'' with more audience.

I have never seen a necessary assumption using such strong language.
Rather a necessary assumption will say: ''some adullts will consider going to the ride''. If we negate this statement, argument won't work.­
Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Posts: 109
Own Kudos [?]: 181 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Re: An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more rolle [#permalink]
ashutosh_73 wrote:
VibhuAnurag wrote:
Assumption:
"Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children."

Fact:
"Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters."

The argument assumes that the target demographic for the new roller coaster will primarily consist of individuals other than young children. To support this assumption, it is essential to establish that most young children are unable to ride roller coasters due to height restrictions or safety regulations. This ensures that the primary audience for the roller coaster based on the action film would likely be individuals other than young children.

VibhuAnurag
I am not sure how you are suggesting that ''Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children.'' is an assumption REQUIRED BY THE ARGUMENT. It can't be a necessary assumption.
At best, the boldfaced statement strengthens the argument. Below is why i think so:

studies show that only young children are fans of the television series ---> so the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.

MOST can be 51%. So if out of 100, 51 are adults and 49 are children.
Now, negation of Most will be ''NOT MOST'', which means adults can still be 49%, and argument stills works fine. Negation of the statement doesn't wreck the argument.

Rather a necessary assumption will say: ''some adullts will consider going to the ride''

Would request KarishmaB to validate my reasoning

Sajjad1994 I would request you to retire such flawed questions from Forum. These inculcate wrong understanding of the concepts. Yesterday as well i flagged one such flawed question from the same source.
­

­Hey Ashutosh, the question seems fine. No need to retire it. I think you missed a beat here; I'll try to explain it better:

In the argument provided, the conclusion is drawn based on the premise that "only young children are fans of the television series." The argument then suggests that, due to this premise, the amusement park would be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.

Now, the assumption here is not about whether some adults will consider going on the ride. Rather, it's about the primary demographic that the amusement park should target with its new roller coaster. The assumption is necessary because it bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Without assuming that the target demographic for the new roller coaster primarily consists of individuals other than young children, the conclusion that the park should build the roller coaster based on the action film doesn't logically follow.

Regarding your point about the term "most" being ambiguous, it's important to note that in logical reasoning, "most" typically refers to a majority or a significant portion. Even if we interpret "most" as 51%, the assumption still holds because it establishes that the primary audience for the roller coaster would likely be individuals other than young children.

In essence, the assumption ensures that the argument's conclusion logically follows from the given premises. It's not about whether some adults may consider going on the ride, but rather about the overarching demographic that the roller coaster should cater to.

Hope it is clear.­
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65406 [2]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more rolle [#permalink]
2
Kudos
ashutosh_73 wrote:
KarishmaB wrote:

­Hi  [url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=KarishmaB]KarishmaB

I still don't see why ''MOST'' is REQUIRED, and without it the argument won't work. Below is my reasoning:

Premise: Studies show that ONLY young children are fans of the television series,
Conclusion: the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.

Television series has ONLY young children FANS = 10 million
Popular action film = Both adults and children are Fans(Young children = 10 million, Adults = 9 million)
If that is the case then arguments still works fine, right?  Negating the assumption doesn't even weaken the argument, because amusement park is still ''better served'' with more audience.

I have never seen a necessary assumption using such strong language.
Rather a necessary assumption will say: ''some adullts will consider going to the ride''. If we negate this statement, argument won't work.­

­
Think about the context of the argument.
Theme 1 is liked by kids alone. Theme 2 is liked by adults. When will a park be better served? When the majority that is going to consider riding it, likes the theme.  Note that in either case, in an amusement park, a ride could be taken by both adults and kids. It should appeal to the "key demography". Some adults will take kids rides too and some kids will take adults rides too (as long as they are allowed etc)

If kids will consider riding it mostly (80%) and some adults (say 20%) will consider riding it, theme 1 is better.
If adults will consider riding it mostly (80%) and some kids (say 20%) will consider riding it, theme 2 is better.

Hence when we say that theme 2 is better suited, it must mean that most who will consider riding it are adults.
Do not think about strong language. It depends on what the argument is and the context.
Re: An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more rolle [#permalink]
Moderators:
Math Expert
93373 posts
DI Forum Moderator
1029 posts
RC & DI Moderator
11282 posts