Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
17 Mar 2026, 00:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Stated premise 1—The space station project will give us knowledge about human physical limits.
Stated premise 2—To explore Mars, we will need that knowledge.
Conclusion—Therefore, building a space station is important.
Possible unstated premise—Humans will have to live in spacecraft for an extended period during Mars exploration.
Now, when I negate this unstated premise, the argument seems to break.
However, to me this feels like we are also questioning the premise, not just supporting the conclusion.
For example, if robots could explore Mars instead of humans, then the idea that we will need medical knowledge about human limits itself becomes doubtful.
In that sense, this assumption seems to act as a link between premise 1 and premise 2, or it supports premise 2, rather than directly supporting the final conclusion.
But as far as I understand, in GMAT CR assumption questions, the assumption is supposed to fill the gap between the stated premises and the conclusion, not between two premises. Also, I thought we are not supposed to question a stated premise in CR.
Could someone please explain what I am misunderstanding in the argument structure?
GMATNinja KarishmaB would love to hear your thoughts.
Stated premise 2—To explore Mars, we will need that knowledge.
Conclusion—Therefore, building a space station is important.
Possible unstated premise—Humans will have to live in spacecraft for an extended period during Mars exploration.
Now, when I negate this unstated premise, the argument seems to break.
However, to me this feels like we are also questioning the premise, not just supporting the conclusion.
For example, if robots could explore Mars instead of humans, then the idea that we will need medical knowledge about human limits itself becomes doubtful.
In that sense, this assumption seems to act as a link between premise 1 and premise 2, or it supports premise 2, rather than directly supporting the final conclusion.
But as far as I understand, in GMAT CR assumption questions, the assumption is supposed to fill the gap between the stated premises and the conclusion, not between two premises. Also, I thought we are not supposed to question a stated premise in CR.
Could someone please explain what I am misunderstanding in the argument structure?
GMATNinja KarishmaB would love to hear your thoughts.
17 Mar 2026, 02:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
siddharth_
That second statement "For future missions to explore Mars, we will need the medical ..." is a claim by the author. It is not a fact. What we will need in future can only be a claim - the author's opinion.
Based on this claim he says "Building a space station ... is essential..." - another claim.
Option (A) is an assumption for the statement "For future missions to explore Mars, we will need the medical ..." So it makes sense. Also, none of the other options offer any possibility.
Moderators:
