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

 It is currently 19 Dec 2018, 07:49

# TODAY:

MIT Sloan R1 Decisions - Join MIT Chat for Live Updates | Chat with UCLA Anderson Adcom @9am PT | Chat with Yale SOM R1 Admit 10am PT

### 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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Happy Christmas 20% Sale! Math Revolution All-In-One Products!

December 20, 2018

December 20, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

This is the most inexpensive and attractive price in the market. Get the course now!
• ### Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

December 22, 2018

December 22, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

# Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Posts: 38
Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Nov 2018, 02:43
4
5
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:42) correct 38% (01:57) wrong based on 660 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, 03:23.
Last edited by Bunuel on 08 Nov 2018, 02:43, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 283
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2010, 05:24
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.

Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
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 conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2011, 04:04
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.
Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Posts: 1
Schools: Foster '18
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2015, 05:52
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 conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2015, 22:31
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

Orion Director of Academics
Joined: 19 Jul 2018
Posts: 97
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 09:22
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: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 108
GPA: 3.56
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 09:33
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: 92
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2018, 09:38
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...

Hence answer is A

Please hit kudos if you like the post.
Re: Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne &nbs [#permalink] 27 Aug 2018, 09:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in conne

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.