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

 It is currently 05 Dec 2019, 10:04

### 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: 35

### Show Tags

Updated on: 29 Apr 2019, 02:19
4
19
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

65% (02:15) correct 35% (02:36) wrong based on 499 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 Bunuel on 29 Apr 2019, 02:19, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9848
Location: Pune, India
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2019, 04:59
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.

- 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.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 248
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 ........
Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 197
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.
Joined: 19 Jul 2018
Posts: 98
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#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
GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 234
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2019, 17:46
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.

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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9848
Location: Pune, India
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2019, 05:09
sayan640 wrote:
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.

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

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.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 215
Schools: NUS '22 (S)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V34
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2019, 21:47

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?

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
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 234

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2019, 18:39
sayan640 wrote:
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.

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

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.

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.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9848
Location: Pune, India
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2019, 21:01
sayan640 wrote:
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.

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.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in   [#permalink] 24 Aug 2019, 21:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by