reto wrote:
Hi Mike
Could you please explain in more detail why answer choice D and E are not possible answers. Because if golfers would be interested in purchasing olf equipment that could substantially improve their score, the argument collapses too (it's the same as C, but maybe not as strong as C). And finally if PGA prohibits all these technologies, wouldnt that make clear sense too? I would love to say "bad question" but that would be too easy. Mh. Thanks
Dear
reto,
I'm happy to respond.
I am critical of the grammar and style in which the prompt is written---this is not GMAT like---but among the answers, there is only one clear answer,
(C), so in that sense, the logic is GMAT-like.
Here's the prompt again:
Despite the existence of high tech polymers that could be used to make golf equipment that would substantially improve an average golfer's score, golf equipment manufacturers tend toward technological conservatism. This is because the only golfers sufficiently interested in the technological innovation of golf equipment that they would be willing to pay the prohibitive sums that these new clubs would initially cost are professional golfers. Therefore, innovation in golf equipment technology is limited by what the Professional Golfers' Association is willing to allow for use in professional golf tournaments.
Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?Here's the OA,
(C), and the two answers about which you ask:
(C) Professional golfers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside of what is allowed for use in professional golf tournaments.
(D) Most golfers would not be interested in purchasing golf equipment that could substantially improve their score.
(E) The rules established by the Professional Golfers' Association prohibit any technological innovations in golf equipmentWhat's wrong with
(D) and
(E)? We have to be very precise in our thinking here. We will apply the
Negation Test for assumptions. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/assumption ... -the-gmat/The prompt argument is about what group of people? Professional golfers, governed by the rules of the PGA. Choice
(D) is about what group of people? Golfers in general, people who play golf. I don't know any pros in the PGA, but I know many people who play golf as a recreation. Think of any sport: think of all the amateurs who play it, and all the professionals who play in the organized professional sport. The amateurs always far outnumber the professionals. So, fact #1:
(D) is talking about a different group of people than the group about whom the prompt talks. The general group in
(D), the set of all possible golfers, includes the pros, but it also includes many other people.
So, let's negate
(D). Let's assume that most golfers, the amateurs out there, would absolutely love to have new equipment that would improve their game. The problem is: the cost of this equipment. The prompt makes clear: this new equipment would be very expensive, and in fact, just about the only people who could afford it would be the people playing in the pros. Think about this. Suppose we talked to one of our friends, who plays golf. Maybe this friend pays, say, $100 year to play at some local golf course. Maybe this friend has a nice set of clubs that cost a few hundred dollars, but it's starting to get old, and the friend is in the market for a new set of clubs. Now, we say to this friend, "
Would you like to buy a new set of clubs that would substantially improve your score?" Our friend would say, "
Absolutely! I'm looking for a good new set of clubs! I would very interested in clubs that could improve my score!" Then, we say, "
OK, we have this new polymer set that will cost $500,000. Are you interested?" Predictably, our friend says, "
No way! Of course not!" No middle-class golf amateur is going to be interested in those clubs, no matter how good they are. Maybe a few multi-millionaires who play golf as amateurs and are really serious about it might buy such clubs, but most amateur golfers, like most of the population, are middle class or poor, and for these folks, super-expensive clubs are out of the question, no matter how interested they might be in equipment that would improve their score.
In order to understand the problem with
(D), you have to understand the real-world economics of the situation.
The problem with
(E) is a little different. The language is too extreme.
(E) The rules established by the Professional Golfers' Association prohibit any technological innovations in golf equipmentIn other words,
The PGA Rules prohibit ALL technological innovations in golf equipmentExtreme statements, involving totalizing words such as "
all," "
none," "
always," "
never," "
every," etc. are usually incorrect on the GMAT SC.
You see, what is the opposite of ALL? Most people would say that the opposite of ALL is NONE, but that is logically not the case. The opposite of "
ALL are" is "
some aren't." The opposite of
The PGA Rules prohibit ALL technological innovations in golf equipmentis
The PGA Rules allow a few technological innovations in golf equipmentSuppose they PGA allowed, say, new golf balls with some special filling made of some new synthetic substance. That would be a technological advance allowed by the PGA. That still doesn't mean that the PGA would allow, say, golf clubs made from the new polymer. The PGA could allow some new technologies, just not the ones involving this particular polymer that the prompt argument is discussing. That would still be totally in line with the conclusion.
It's possible to negate either
(D) or
(E), and the argument still works fine. Neither one is an assumption.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
close
23 Jan 2014, 11:56
35%
(medium)
27%
(02:22)
wrong 
) 
