Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in

Question

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.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

- Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. 
- “Explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not.

Conclusion: "Explosion” is the term that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

The argument says that the term "explosion" elicits desirable reactions so should be used. 
Which of the following is an assumption?

(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.

To establish that the term should be used, just focusing on "desirable reactions" is not enough. The advantages of desirable reaction should outweigh the disadvantages of undesirable reactions. Then we can say that we should use the term. That is what this option says and is hence correct.

(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.

Irrelevant whether it has been used so far or not.

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

Irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing how it is put into words and which words are better. The fact that what is said is more important is irrelevant.

(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.

We don't need to assume that people would use "energetic disassembly" only because they don't want a serious discussion to take place. Perhaps the term “energetic disassembly” elicits some other desirable reactions that "explosions" doesn't and that is why people want to use this term.
We just need to assume that advantages of using explosions outweighs advantages of using “energetic disassembly” and hence we should use the term "explosions".

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

Irrelevant.

Answer (A)

adishail · Answer

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 ........

vivesomnium · Answer

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.

LauraOrion · Answer

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.

sayan640 · Answer

The conclusion is "of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort."

Option C and E are out of scope.
Option B is irrelevant.

Between option A and D , lets use negation technique.

Option A when negated ,

In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” DO NOT outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

If the advantages of the term 'explosions' do not outweigh the drawbacks , then the term 'explosion' should not be used. The conclusion i.e "of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort." can not follow.

Option A is the assumption.

Now lets check option D...

Option D when negated ,
 The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is NOT to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
That means "energetic disassembly " makes any serious policy discussion possible. But that means "energetic disassembly" can lead to undesirable reactions and for that , "explosion" should be used.
The conclusion i.e "of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort." can follow.

Conclusion follows after negation. Option D is incorrect.

Is my negation technique for eliminating option D the correct approach ?  VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

KarishmaB · Answer

When you negate (D), "the only reason" will be replaced by "not the only reason". Even if they have other reasons to use “energetic disassembly”, still it is possible that "explosions" should be used since advantages of using "explosions" outweighs advantages of using “energetic disassembly”. Hence the conclusion can still hold.

A word on negation - it is not necessary to use negation in every assumption question. I find that negation technique is confusing at times and I advise my students to avoid it. Only if one is really stuck between two options and can't see a way out should one give it a shot.

rish2708 · Answer

Hello  VeritasKarishma  ma'am and experts,

Is this reasoning correct to reject option 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.

In this option we do not know whether such discussions are filled with high levels of attentions or desirable actions, so we can't have any impact of this option on the argument?

Had this option been 
The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue that  involves desirable reactions and high level of attention

Would this option been an assumption. I actually pre-thought on similar lines.

My thought was - Even infrequent usage of ED ( energetic disassembly) in substitute of explosion would not lead to high attentions or desirable reactions ( Because this makes me believe more in throughout use of explosion)

Please suggest if the modified option could qualify for assumption?

Regards,
Rishav

sayan640 · Answer

Hi Maa'm,

I find the highlighted portion of your reasoning questionable. Can you please explain why you are mentioning the point from option A ( "...advantages of using "explosions" outweighs advantages of using “energetic disassembly”....is from option A ) while negating option D ?

I am providing my reasoning below by negating option D.
Please let me know whether it's correct.

Option D if negated :-

"NOT 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."
There are other reasons too for using the term " “energetic disassembly”". But "the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not." So "explosion" should still be used even though there are reasons for using the term "energetic disassembly" . So the conclusion i.e " of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort." can follow.

Conclusion follows after negation. So option D is not correct.

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   ChiranjeevSingh

KarishmaB · Answer

The explanation for (D) has nothing to do with option (A).

Negating option (D) tells is that there could be multiple reasons for using the term "energetic disassembly" i.e. there can be multiple advantages of using "energetic disassembly". Just because option (A) uses the term 'advantages', it doesn't mean we cannot call 'reasons for using A' 'advantages for using A' - both make the same point irrespective of the term used). It is easier to use the term "advantages" since it helps you understand why (D) is incorrect and (A) is correct. It is no different if you use the term 'reasons'. The logic stays the same.

Hoozan · Answer

VeritasKarishma

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

Please could you help me understand the difference between "what is said" and "how it is put into words"

Both the phrases meant one and the same for me

mSKR · Answer

I am not expert , but here is my understanding:
what is said by the participants = it can be ungrammatical as we use in oral language . for this context : use any word ( here focus on meaning) 
how it is put into words= use proper words/expression : using word "explosion" is important than any substitute , even both words have same meaning ( here focus on words)
Actually this weakens the conclusion:
We need an option that strengthens the claim that words are important. That's why emphasis is on using word " explosion"

I hope it helps:)

AlwaysImproving · Answer

The Argument never talked about undesirable outcomes, how is the choice   is correct?

mSKR · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma

This question took a hard time for me to solve. 
Could you please check if my approach is correct ?

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.

serious policy discussion---> use term explosion --> for desirable reaction
question: term 'explosion' should be used in serious discussion
missing gap: desirable reaction is needed in policy discussion

option should orient around in realtion of reaction with serious discussion

(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

in short, using term "explosion" would have advantages over disadvantages if any for serious discussion

Am I right?

KarishmaB · Answer

Option (A) says that upon using the term "explosion", the advantages will outweigh disadvantages. It makes sense that we should use the term "explosion" only if this is indeed true. 
If disadvantages of using "explosion" outweigh advantages, we shouldn't use the term no matter what the advantages are.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Conclusion - “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort. WHY BECAUSE - the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions. What can be the possible objection? It has some undesirable outcomes as well. So, we need to shield the argument against that objection. The assumption is ensuring that we are taking care of the objection i.e. Desirable outcomes outweigh undesirable outcomes.

(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. - In line with our pre-thinking.

(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. - If it has not been used so far. that is what? Distortion

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words. - It says words are less important than what participants said - a kind of comparison we don't care. Out of scope.

(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. - Why we use the word “energetic disassembly” is out of scope.

(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion. - Again the case wherein the use of “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place is not of interest to us. Out of scope.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in

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