GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 25 Sep 2018, 18:03

### 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

# Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Posts: 39

### Show Tags

Updated on: 29 Apr 2018, 05:10
4
5
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:12) correct 39% (02:27) wrong based on 598 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.

(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.

(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

Originally posted by amirdubai1982 on 09 Sep 2010, 04:23.
Last edited by hazelnut on 29 Apr 2018, 05:10, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2015
Posts: 44
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2015, 23:08
2
4
Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.
(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion
_________________

Regards,
Sam GM

##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 299
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2010, 06:24
1
I used POE to get to A.

C, D & E are straight out, sort of irrelevant. Re-checking A & B, even B appeared irrelevant.

Plus, the statement emphasizes that the desirable impact is dependent on the word that is used; explosion or energetic disassembly". Hence, it is closer to A, which is emphasizing that advantages (desirable reactions).

The argument simply means - use of the word explosion has "desirable reactions" and "energetic ...." doesn't have the same impact. .............. one is more advantageous than the other ........
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Senior Manager
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 300
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2010, 06:45
I got A too through POE. I was debating between A and E then read the conclusion again to decide on A.
_________________

My gmat story
MGMAT1 - 630 Q44V32
MGMAT2 - 650 Q41V38
MGMAT3 - 680 Q44V37
GMATPrep1 - 660 Q49V31
Knewton1 - 550 Q40V27

Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 243
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2011, 05:04
1
amirdubai1982 wrote:
Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.
(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion

I am not able to paraphrase the argument pls help????

source : LSAT
If it is nice and challenging enough, don't forget Kadoss
OA: A

Paraphrase is: If you have to really discuss risks related to explosions, call explosions 'explosions' and not 'energetic dissembly', because only word explosion creates in audience reactions like serious attention which are required for serious discussion.
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1094
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 08:56
questioning why is just so apt here.
Why an explosion should be called with its original word has to be answered here. The heightened level of attentions is required but why ?

A clearly answers these and other options just don't even come close.

A it is.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 522
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2011, 10:38
Coolasice81 wrote:
Hi
What is POE?

process of elimination.. to probability of correct answer is 20%(1 out of 5)
if we eliminate one wrong choice .. ur probability increases to 25% ( i out of 4) and so on....
Retired Moderator
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 852
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: LBS MIF '19
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2015, 06:00
gmt1 wrote:
Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.
(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion

Do you have any explaination for AC A and E? E sounds nice too. I would have chosen E because if the term "energetic disassembly" is not ouf of place, then it is an issue to chose between the two terms ... so we have to assume that.
_________________

Saving was yesterday, heat up the gmatclub.forum's sentiment by spending KUDOS!

PS Please send me PM if I do not respond to your question within 24 hours.

Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Posts: 1
Schools: Foster '18
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2015, 06:52
1
The Argument doesnt talk anything about the types of explosion..hence its quite out of scope to include them
Current Student
Joined: 21 Aug 2014
Posts: 138
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V40
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2015, 23:31
1
Use the word “Explosion” = desirable reactions = discussed well served
Use the word “Energetic disassembly” = NO desirable reactions = discussion Not well served

Conclusion: Use the word "Explosion" throughout in the discussion.

Possible assumptions:
1) Only those terms concerning "Desirable reactions" find place throughout the discussion.
2) Only those discussions that are well served are used throughout the discussion.

Choice A is correct.

P.S.: I had initially chosen choice C , but then I realised that it does not bridge the gap between the premise and conclusion, which is why to use the word "Explosion" throughout in the discussion.
_________________

Please consider giving Kudos if you like my explanation

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 86
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2015, 16:19
Request you not to write your queries/answers/opinions in question window. It prevents ppl from analysing the question. The whole purpose of GMAT Club forum goes wasted by doing so.
Intern
Joined: 21 Oct 2016
Posts: 11
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
WE: Research (Health Care)
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2017, 11:22
Can anyone explain in detail why option E is not correct?
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2016
Posts: 327
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Operations
GMAT 1: 540 Q49 V16
GMAT 2: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT 3: 630 Q48 V28
GPA: 3.4
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2018, 11:58
Hello Experts,

u1983
_________________

Please let me know if I am going in wrong direction.
Thanks in appreciation.

Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 100
GPA: 2.56
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 10:14
Not getting a single thing on this 700+ Assumption question. Especially the OA looks completely out of scope.
Moreover since this from GMAT paper test, I am finding it difficult to ignore and go ahead.

_________________

The Graceful
----------------------------------------------------------
Every EXPERT was a beginner once...
Don't look at the clock. Do what it does, keep going
..
To achieve great things, two things are needed:a plan and not quite enough time - Leonard Bernstein.

Joined: 19 Jul 2018
Posts: 31
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 10:22
The key here is to look at what would happen if the opposite of (A) was true - would the argument still stand? The argument itself is that the word explosion gets more of a reaction than "energetic disassembly," and that the increased reaction is a good thing.

If (A) were to be negated, it would read something along the lines of "the advantages of the desirable reactions do NOT outweigh the disadvantages of the undesirable reactions." If this was true, the entire argument for using the word explosion would fall apart. You wouldn't use a word if the undesirable reactions were more intense than the desirable reactions. Because negating that statement seriously harms the argument's conclusion, it must be an assumption that the argument is built on.
_________________

Laura
http://www.learnwithorion.com

Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 100
GPA: 2.56
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 10:33
LauraOrion wrote:
The key here is to look at what would happen if the opposite of (A) was true - would the argument still stand? The argument itself is that the word explosion gets more of a reaction than "energetic disassembly," and that the increased reaction is a good thing.

If (A) were to be negated, it would read something along the lines of "the advantages of the desirable reactions do NOT outweigh the disadvantages of the undesirable reactions." If this was true, the entire argument for using the word explosion would fall apart. You wouldn't use a word if the undesirable reactions were more intense than the desirable reactions. Because negating that statement seriously harms the argument's conclusion, it must be an assumption that the argument is built on.

Thank you very much...!!
I got confused/rather got sink in words.

A. In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

Although, I read this twice or thrice, my mind was interpreting advantages of desirable reactions outweigh disadvantages of the same thing.
And then I went on thinking that option A is out of scope as argument never talk of disadvantages of desirable results.

Thanks for the quick response.

_________________

The Graceful
----------------------------------------------------------
Every EXPERT was a beginner once...
Don't look at the clock. Do what it does, keep going
..
To achieve great things, two things are needed:a plan and not quite enough time - Leonard Bernstein.

Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 53

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 10:38
amirdubai1982 wrote:
Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.

(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.

(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

CONCLUSION: EXPLOSION should be used in discussions of this sort (Serious)
PREMISE 1: Serious policy discussion is served better with Explosion than Energetic Disassembly
PREMISE 2: EXPLOSION also invokes attention

Assumption: Lets say conclusion does not hold
which means "explosion should not be used in discussions"
But why,
What if explosion ,though it brings attention, is still not required in serious policy discussion. In discussions we need positive mindset and seek solutions where energetic disassembly can score. Energetic disassembly brings positive connotation and people become more solution oriented ie. to say it has more advantages than "explosion"
A possible assumption is : Such scenario will not exist. i.e Explosion does not have any drawbacks or positive outweighs its drawbacks...

Please hit kudos if you like the post.
Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in &nbs [#permalink] 27 Aug 2018, 10:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in

## Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.