It is currently 22 Jun 2017, 21:08

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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

Anybody encountered CRs like these recently? BTW: No, they

Author Message
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5218
Anybody encountered CRs like these recently? BTW: No, they [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 06:46
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Anybody encountered CRs like these recently? BTW: No, they are not from a (known) LSAT source. The purpose of this post is to clarify the difference between a presupposition and an assumption. The OAs are available, just no OEs..

1. Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs. For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the argument above?

(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents.
(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.
(C) Stricter government regulation of airline companies will make air travel significantly safer.
(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained

From the same source... for vertical reference.

2. The president of a consulting firm analyzed the decisions made about marketing by her clients and concluded that the decisions were correct only about half of the time.

The conclusion above depends on the presupposition that

(A) companies can be successful even when about half of the decisions they make about marketing prove to be wrong
(B) companies hiring her consulting firm make no more incorrect marketing decisions than do companies in general
(C) executives consistently making correct marketing decisions rarely enlist the aid of a consulting firm
(D) marketing decision are just as likely to be correct as they are to be incorrect
(E) it is possible to classify a marketing decision properly as being either right or wrong

And yet another from MGMAT.

3. When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patents expire, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

A.Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
B.Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
C.Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
D.The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.

Just seems like another way to window dress an assumption question, but Cambridge disagrees...

Last edited by GMATT73 on 18 Oct 2006, 09:12, edited 2 times in total.
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1016
Re: CR Presupposition vs Assumption [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 07:02
GMATT73 wrote:
Anybody encountered a CR like this one recently? BTW: No, it is not from a (known) LSAT source.

Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs. For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the argument above?

(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents.
(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.
(C) Stricter government regulation of airline companies will make air travel significantly safer.
(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained

Was finally left with D and E.

E is assuming that pilots who were responsible for an accident will be allowed to fly again. This aspect we are not sure. Hence D.

Also, highlighted text made me to choose D. "Should" means investigators should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

GMAT Instructor
Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 1262

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 07:20
A. The argument assumes that pilot error was not to blame
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1016

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 07:30
kevincan wrote:
A. The argument assumes that pilot error was not to blame

Kevin won't be wrong that easily. However, I will try to defend my answer.

A says "Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents"

But after reading the argument I get the impression based on the tone of argument that "Pilot error is a contributing factor to accidents. But poor pilots can't be really blamed for the accidents because of x...y..z factors"

Is n't it so? I doubt whether A can be the answer in that case.

_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Last edited by ak_idc on 16 Oct 2006, 07:32, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 575
Location: France

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 07:31
E

(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents.
NOK - it is already stated that pilot errors are a contributing factor.
(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.
NOK - out of scope
(C) Stricter government regulation of airline companies will make air travel significantly safer.
NOK - out of scope
(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained
OK - the arguement adresses the pb of training which leads to pilot errors.
If the pilot continue to show the same pattern of error, there is no need to adresse the problem of training,and the argument would not hold.
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5218

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 08:29
Oh yeah.... this is going to be interesting...
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 367

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 08:51
My Pick A

Reason: "analyzing airplane design, airline management"

E is ruled out because we are no only considering training but also he other factors that go into accidents. Hence, accidents are not only caused because of Pilot erros but some other management factors are involved.

Thanks
Saurabh Malpani
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 706

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 09:11

E talks about only pilot training. Many factors contribute accidents.
Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 210

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 09:19
Yes its interesting. Close between (A) and (D). What is the OA and OE ?
Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 718

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 09:36
Matt))Tricky question
But after thinking about 2 min I ll stick with A. I can't explain why A is correct
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1016

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 10:20
I think first we should agree upon the definitions of presupposition and assumption or atleast on how they are different.

Matt, can you please throw some light on that aspect?
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 575
Location: France
Re: CR Presupposition vs Assumption [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 10:41
GMATT73 wrote:
Anybody encountered a CR like this one recently? BTW: No, it is not from a (known) LSAT source.

Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs. For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the argument above?

(A) Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents.
(B) Airline companies themselves should be the agents who investigate airline accidents.
(C) Stricter government regulation of airline companies will make air travel significantly safer.
(D) Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
(E) Most pilots who make errors in flying will repeat their errors unless they are retrained

I have really difficulties to see how A could be the correct answer

Text says : "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training programs."

I understand this as : An accident occurs, the pilot has made an error. Investigators, as usually blame the pilot. Instead, they should consider the reason why the pilot has made the error.
For example, the pilot has pulled the stick to late for take off, and the plane finished in the sea. Why did he pull too late? because the speed signal didn't turn on. Thus design/electrical problem.

and A says :" Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents."

If what I interpreted is right, clearly the pilot is a contributing factor even if he might not be eventually responsible for the crash.

SVP
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 2130

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 13:05
A

The writer thinks pilots are not responsible thus regulations should not look heavily into pilot errors. The answer is too obvious that most people overlook it.
Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 524

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 13:24
It should be D.
Author is assuming that investigator has the responsibility to make sure similar accidents do not happen again
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 374

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 13:52
I agree D

the paragraph takes for granted that investigators should contribute to future airline safety, perhaps that isn't their role.

i think the best approximation of presupposition in this context is 'a hypothesis / assumption that is taken for granted' i think this paragraph takes for granted that investigators should care about future safety, so D.
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 1262

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 14:23
I'm changing my mind! D states the assumption underlying the prescriptive conclusion
Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 575
Location: France

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 14:44
I'm a bit worried that I am the only one for E.

But also with D I have some troubles. For me, D restates something already given in the text:

D : investigators should contribute to the prevention = "investigators should find out why the error" + "so only will accidents be reduced".
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 374

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 14:56
karlfurt wrote:
I'm a bit worried that I am the only one for E.

But also with D I have some troubles. For me, D restates something already given in the text:

D : investigators should contribute to the prevention = "investigators should find out why the error" + "so only will accidents be reduced".

Well I would suggest that the job of an investigator is to investigate, the job of a prevention officer is to prevent. This passage seems to assume that investigators should also contribute to future safety by investigating design, management, training etc.

Perhaps put it into a different context:

Instead of blaming crime on criminals, policemen should find out why the crime was comitted by analyzing social injustice, drug abuse, and parental neglect. For only then can changes to be made to ensure that these crimes aren't commited again in the future.

Would you suggest that social work is the job of a policeman?
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 380
Location: TX

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 15:32
My take on this is A.

All the rest are either tangential or out of scope.
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 151

Show Tags

16 Oct 2006, 21:13
I will go for E.

No idea if this is a gmat question.
16 Oct 2006, 21:13

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 36 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
CR-like ads for The Wall Street Journal 2 29 Sep 2009, 13:09
Can anybody post a link to 'Power CR bible' pls 4 26 Sep 2008, 22:41
I have encountered a number of MGMAT CR"S that can have 4 27 Jun 2008, 10:22
CR- I like this one 3 30 Aug 2007, 16:33
Can anybody suggest best CR study guide other than OG and 6 17 Aug 2007, 05:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by