Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official

Between A & D

(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area: Not necessarily.It is nowhere mentioned that convincing people about one's qualification is the only way to become an expert. There may be other ways to become an expert too.

(A) Correct. According to the author, one way by which almost anyone can become an expert is by convincing others of his/ her abilities. Clearly, the author assumes that almost anyone can convince people of his or her qualifications in some area.

Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

I am not bothered about answers here, but really want to know how conclusion is determined here.....

Will surely put up complete question once my doubt gets clarified...

The conclusion is: "Almost anyone can be an expert"

Why? "There are no guidelines."

Following logic: "As long as you an convince someone you know something - you're an expert."

OK - as long as you can convince someone. But how many people in the world can actually convince someone? Is this a special talent? Can only one person in the world do this? Or can anybody do it?


Remember, the conclusion is: "Almost ANYONE can be an expert"

OK, well, then there must be an assumption that allows the logic to go from
this:
"As long as you can convince someone"

to this:" anyone can be an expert"

That missing piece is: "ANYONE can convince someone that they are an expert."

That's exactly what (A) is: "Almost anyone can convince some people of
his or her qualifications in some area."

So if this assumption in (A) is true - only then, can the main conclusion be true: - that "anyone can be an expert."

It's because "almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area."

So mark (A) and move on.
Hope that helps.

Responding to a pm:

Let me re-arrange the sentences. I am not changing anything. Just re-arranging.

There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert. So almost anyone can be an expert.

What is the conclusion here? What is the author's opinion here? Say, the author is trying to convince you of something. What is it? Use as few words as you can. What is the thought in the columnist's mind that he is trying to convey? I am sure you have no doubts here that the conclusion is the last sentence and that the first two sentences are supporting it. The last sentence becomes the conclusion not because it has the word 'so' in front of it, but because its content is what the author is trying to tell you.

In the original question, does it make sense that the thought in the columnist's mind is that anyone can be an expert? The columnist is trying to convince you of that by saying that there are no official guidelines so whenever a person convinces people of his/her qualifications, he becomes an expert.

He says all you need to do is convince people of your qualifications so pretty much anyone can be an expert. But he is assuming that everyone can convince people of his/her qualifications.

@VeritasPrepKarishma

I don't think having this sentence really contributes much to the argument::> "There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know.". Do you agree in this?

I have rearranged the sentences the way I look at it. Why cant I assume last sentence as conclusion as per my arrangement?

There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Almost anyone can be an expert. So anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.

It does contribute. It is a supporting statement (so a premise). It supports the author's opinion "Almost anyone can be an expert."
Since there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know, it is easy for almost anyone to be an expert.



Because the last sentence supports "Almost anyone can be an expert." Hence it is a premise. The other two sentences do not support this last sentence.
"Almost anyone can be an expert" is the author's opinion which he is trying to get across. The arrangement of the sentences does not decide the conclusion. I re-arranged the argument to show you that the other two sentences are supporting sentences. When you read the argument, you have to assess what it is that the author is trying to talk about. What is the opinion he is trying to convince you of. He will use premises to convince you of his opinion.

Here, the author's saying this: There are no official guidelines. Anyone who can convince someone of his credentials can be an expert. So almost anyone can be an expert.

@VeritasPrepKarishma
I tried to make an analogous argument similar to this.
Sentence 1(S1): Almost anyone can be an expert ==> Anyone can be a champion
Sentence 2(S2): Anybody who manages to convince .... is an expert ==> Any person who manages to complete a marathon is a champion.

I observed that my analogous argument as well as original argument is having a structure in which S1 is part of S2.
Structurally, in both arguments(original and my analogous argument) looks like S2 ==> Any X who does Y becomes S1.

Can I say that in such scenarios, S1 will always be a conclusion?

If you have any other such argument in your question bank, I would like to know about the some of them here.

You are over analyzing. You don't find the conclusion using 'rules'. Conclusion is the main thought behind the argument. You have pointers which help you find the conclusion but they may not always work. Every question is different. The only 'rule' that will always work is that conclusion is 'what the author is trying to convey' in a sentence. When you debate with someone, you have a point of view. You try to convince the other person of that point of view (which is the conclusion of your argument). Everything else you say is only to support your conclusion. Think of it in these terms instead of blindly focusing on strategies. Strategies are only generic tools which work in many situations. As Utkarsh said above, "some approaches ... does not mean they will fit each and every where, if that were the case, then person reading the most number of guides would have scored the highest on Gmat"

Thanks a lot for pointing that. I am in habit of doing overanalyzing often. I got your point. The problem is that I located a wrong conclusion and then I have to analyze my thought process. That's what I feel would be strategy(to get into nuts and bolts) for a person who inherently doesn't get a problem.

BTW, what would be answer as per your analysis?

When I read the question, this was my thought:

"Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"

Premises:
There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know.
Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.

Conclusion:
Almost anyone can be an expert.

How did the author jump from 'Anybody who manages to convince some people' to 'Almost anyone'. He is assuming that almost everyone can manage to convince some people. So I would look for an option that said something similar.

In structure, the argument is very similar to this:

Premises:
There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know.
Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.

Conclusion:
Mr A is an expert.

What is the assumption here?
The assumption is that Mr A can convince some people of his qualifications in an area.

In the original argument, instead of Mr A, the author has put 'Almost everyone'. The argument is exactly the same.

The answer is A.
The question says two things:
- everyone can be an expert
- if you can convince others of your qualifications, you are an expert

Therefore, the claim is assuming that everyone can convince others of this - this is what makes it true that everyone can be an expert.

A. Almost anyone can be an expert. (Conclusion)
B. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area is an expert.


A leads to B

So if you cant convince you cant be an expert.
Negate option A



Negated verion:


Conclusion falls apart.

P: Anybody who manages to convince some people of his/her qualifications is an expert
P: There are no guidelines for determining what an expert must know
C: Almost anyone can be an expert

Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.

The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?


(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area. CORRECT

(B) Some experts convince everyone of their qualification in almost every area. X
-this doesn't have to be true

(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified in an area requires that one actually be qualified in that area. X
-this isn't relevant to the argument...the passage doesn't say anything about actual technical aptitude...as long as you can convince somebody of something in an area, you are an expert

(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area. X
-this precludes the possibility that there are other criteria by which someone can be evaluated against for the purpose of determining whether he/she is an expert...
-it doesn't have to be the case that an expert convinced some people, but if you did, then you are an expert

(E) Some people manage to convince almost everyone of their qualifications in one or more areas. X
-doesn't have to be true.

Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.

The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Almost anyone can convince some people of his or her qualifications in some area.

(B) Some experts convince everyone of their qualification in almost every area.

(C) Convincing certain people that one is qualified in an area requires that one actually be qualified in that area. - WRONG. Taking small pinch of info to make another claim that is not supported.

(D) Every expert has convinced some people of his or her qualifications in some area.

(E) Some people manage to convince almost everyone of their qualifications in one or more areas.

Although I had no doubt identifying conclusion but I lost my while answering between A and D(like anyone).
I fell for expert being able to convince some people always. So, it was like a case of reverse causality that if someone is an expert he/she must have convinced someone. But underlying qualification for an expert to be so is that there is "no official guidelines determining what an expert must know". Convincing someone is altogether a different ballgame that is not related to official guidelines.
And I guess here itself D is chosen by anyone as it did.

HTHs.

D is wrong because it says every means. 100% but question says almost that means near to 100% but not exactly 100%!!

Posted from my mobile device