manojISB wrote:
Hello
e-GMAT,
Thanks for the article. I just wants to confirm that Assupmtion : "Harvard only admits super-smart GMAT aspirants. " is not valid here?
As it does not pass the negation test i.e. When i negate this assumption i.e.("Harvard does not only admits super-smart GMAT aspirants. ") it does not falsify the conclusion "Hence, every Harvard admit is a registered student at GMATClub."
Because there could be few non super smart students who registered on GmatClub and now are admitted into Harvard.
Please confirm.
Thanks
Manoj
Hi Manoj,
Thank you for your query.
Let’s have a look at the argument in question:
Every super-smart GMAT aspirant registers on GMATClub. Hence, every Harvard admit is a registered student at GMATClub.Let’s break down the logical structure of the argument:
Conclusion: Every Harvard admit is a registered student at GMATClub.
Premise : Every super-smart GMAT aspirant registers on GMATClub.
After analyzing the above structure, you will be able to see that the missing link among the above three elements (super-smart GMAT aspirants, GMAT club members and Harvard admits) is between super-smart GMAT aspirants and Harvard. Unless that link is established, the author will not be able to make the cited conclusion. For example, think of an alternate scenario in which Harvard also admits people who are not super-smart? Let’s make this scenario in to a statement form:
• Harvard does not admit only those people who are super-smart GMAT aspirants.
In the above scenario, we open up the possibility that Harvard admits non-supersmart GMAT aspirants or people belonging to other categories as well. Whether it actually does that or not is a different case and we are not commenting on that. But in the above scenario, it is definitely possible that it does.
Given the above situation, do you think the author will be able to make a connection between every Harvard admit and GMAT Club aspirants? The answer is a big NO! After all one could argue that how does a general rule about super-smart GMAT aspirants apply to non-super smart GMAT aspirants or other categories? So in such a case, the conclusion of the argument will not hold on the basis of the cited premises. Now if you see, the scenario I created arises from negating the below-mentioned assumption of the argument:
Assumption: Harvard only admits super-smart GMAT aspirants. This shows that the author necessarily has to assume a link between super-smart GMAT aspirant and Harvard admits. And since the conclusion is an absolute one –
Every Harvard admit- the author is assuming that Harvard
only lets in people who are super-smart GMAT aspirants.
Coming to the situation cited by you:
There could be few non- super smart students who registered on GmatClub and now are admitted into Harvard.
My question to you is : Is the situation cited by you similar to the one that arises when we negate the assumption? Let’s see:
Commonality: Both of us are saying that there could be a situation in which Harvard admits non-super smart GMAT aspirants.
Difference: The only difference is that you are saying that in this case the non-super smart aspirants are also registered GMAT club members. This means that we can still say that
Every Harvard admit is a registered student at GMATClub. But look at how you arrived at the above conclusion. You added an additional piece of information to the negated version of the assumption. Your statement is not based purely on the negation of the assumption. It has factored in something else as well! If you limit your statement to only the negated version of the assumption, the conclusion will not hold.
Does the above discussion help?
Regards,
Neeti.