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

Question

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.

VibhuAnurag · Answer

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.

ashutosh_73 · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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)

ashutosh_73 · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB

Please help me out here.
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 childre n 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.

VibhuAnurag · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

bharathhr · Answer

statement c negation is 'most of the people who want to ride rollercoster are young children, In this case if 51%are young children , then why build action themed park ?

egmat · Answer

Hi bharathhr,

You've negated the assumption correctly, but let's look at what that negated world actually does to the  conclusion .

The conclusion isn't just "build the action coaster." It's a  comparison : the park is  better served  by the action film  than  by the children's-TV show. Karishma's last post hit this exact point - it's about which theme appeals to the  key demography  of riders.

So run your own scenario through that lens:

- Negated assumption =  most riders are young children  (say  51% ).
- We're told  only young children  are fans of the TV series.
- That means the TV-series theme would connect with the  majority  of the people who'll ride it.

In that world, why would the action film be the  better  choice? The children's-show coaster now matches what most of your riders love. The conclusion "action film is better served" no longer holds - it could easily be the worse pick. That's exactly how a necessary assumption behaves: negate it, and the comparative conclusion collapses.

Where your reading slips:  you're treating "more total audience" as automatically good for the action film. But the argument never claims the action film draws a bigger crowd - it claims the park is  better served  by it. "Better served" depends on whom the majority of riders are, not on raw headcount.

Quick test to lock it in: imagine the rider pool were  90%  young children. Would you still say the action coaster serves the park better than a coaster built around the show those very kids adore? Once you push the percentage up, you can  feel  the conclusion break - which confirms the majority claim really is required.

Answer: Column 1 (Assumption) = Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children.; Column 2 (Fact) = Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters

Psingh4249 · Answer

Hi, I feel comfortable with the assumption part but I am not able to convince myself why "The park already has a roller coaster based on a children’s show" can't be the fact here as we already made an assumptions on the desired demography of the people riding it which is adult and the fact that we already have a roller coaster specifically with the theme which the children like. Hence, it's better suited to make a new one with a action theme.

Bunuel · Answer

The problem is asking for a fact that supports the  assumption , not just a fact that supports the final recommendation.

The assumption is:  most people likely to ride the new roller coaster are not young children.

“ The park already has a roller coaster based on a children’s show ” does not support  that assumption . The park could already have such a ride and still have many young children as potential riders for another children-themed ride.

It only gives a possible reason not to duplicate a theme. It does not show that young children are unlikely to be the main riders of the new roller coaster.

“ Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters ” directly supports the assumption, because it explains  why  young children are probably not the main group of people who would ride the new roller coaster.

egmat · Answer

Hi Psingh4249,

You've nailed the assumption, so let's zoom in on exactly what the  Fact  column has to do. Its job is narrow: the fact must support  the specific assumption you picked  - " most of the people who will consider riding are not young children " - not the conclusion in general.

That distinction is where option  6  slips.

What the assumption actually claims

The assumption is about  who shows up in the rider pool : it says the majority of riders won't be young children. So a supporting fact has to give a reason to believe  young children won't make up most of the riders .

- Option  2  does this head-on: if  most young children aren't tall enough to ride , then they're physically kept out of the rider pool - so most riders end up being non-children. The assumption is directly propped up.

Why option 6 doesn't fit

"The park already has a roller coaster based on a children's show" tells you nothing about  who will consider riding the new coaster . Young children could still flood the new ride regardless of what else exists in the park. So it leaves the demographic assumption completely untouched.

What option  6  feels  like is another reason to prefer the action film - "we already have a kids' ride, so don't duplicate." But notice: that's a brand-new argument for the  conclusion , built on a redundancy idea the passage never mentions. The Fact column isn't asking for "another reason the action film wins" - it's asking for support for the  required assumption about riders . Option  6  supports a different line of reasoning entirely.

Quick test to lock it in

Ask of each fact:  "Does this make it more likely that most riders are NOT young children?"

- Option  2  - yes (they can't physically ride).
- Option  6  - no effect on who rides at all.

That single question keeps the Fact tied to  your  assumption instead of drifting to the broader conclusion - which is exactly the trap option  6  is designed to bait.

Answer: Column 1 (Assumption) = Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children.; Column 2 (Fact) = Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters

WildSnow · Answer

MartyMurray  Please shed some light here on the assumption. 
The argument says that only young children are fans of the television series, so the amusement park would be better served by building a roller coaster based on the action film.

What exactly does "better served" mean in this context? I interpreted it as appealing to a broader demographic.

What I don't understand is why the argument has to assume that "Most of the people who will consider riding the new roller coaster are not young children."

Even if 51% of the potential riders are young children and only 49% are adults, wouldn't the conclusion still hold? The action film could still attract both adults and some children, making it a reasonable choice. Why the "most riders are not young children" assumption is necessary.

MartyMurray · Answer

The question isn't ideally constructed. You're right. Regardless of whether most of the people who will consider riding the roller coaster will be young children, it could still make sense to base it on the action film.

So, if there's anything to be learned from this question, it's that we can still get it correct by noticing that the choice about most riders not being young children is the only one that could possibly be the assumption that's also supported by another choice. Since not all official Verbal questions are perfectly constructed, it's somewhat valuable to learn to arrive at the credited answer to an imperfect question.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Assumption	Fact
		The film will not lose popularity once its sequel is released.
		Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters
		Movie attendance has declined significantly since the 1960s.
		Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children.
		Children spend increasing amounts of time on the Internet and decreasing amounts of time watching television.
		The park already has a roller coaster based on a children’s show.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards