LogicGuru1
Dear Mike,
It does not make sense.
Every single CR book that i have read, EXPLICITLY states that we cannot go into solving CR with any prior knowledge of real world. except may be for a few universal truth (Ex:-Sun rises in the East or every coin has only two values a head and a tail and no other face value.)
Every book on CR tells us GMAT World is different than real world when it comes to CR Logic.
It might sound harsh but in this post your explanation just assumes and assumes and then further assumes some more.
And this is not even an assumption question. It is an Inference question and the answer should FLOW only from the premises or fact set mentioned in the stimulus.
No one can go into a CR question by assuming all the things you assumed in your explanation.
Sorry but not satisfied with your response.
The only thing I will agree is that this is a Not a good question.
Dear
LogicGuru1I'm happy to respond.

With all due respect, my friend, you are missing an important subtlety that, unfortunately, too many books do not make clear. In fact, many of the books about the GMAT CR I have seen are atrocious, but that's another story. I will say that
MGMAT has an
excellent book on GMAT CR.
It's true that, for example in a CR on distance learning, you don't need to know anything about the very specifics of distance learning---you don't need what the OG calls "specialized knowledge." You don't need to know specific distance learning-companies (such as
Magoosh) and what their plans are, etc. In fact, many of the companies mentioned in GMAT CR are entirely fictional, so one couldn't possibly know anything about their business practices.
Nevertheless,
it is a grave mistake to assume that all outside knowledge is bad or irrelevant. In a way, you do acknowledge this in your deference to universal truths, but the fact that the sun rises or that a coin has H & T sides are not particularly potent facts for most CR arguments. By contrast, most of the "universal" truths one should know are facts about economics and the business world. For example, the
Law of Supply and Demand is not universally true, but it's a widespread enough pattern that folks should know about it. In fact, there are a number of rules and patterns in the business world, patterns that span several different types of markets, including
for-profit businesses vs. non-profits, and the relationship of
inflation and unemployment. This is all second-nature to any manager who runs a business, and knowing all these patterns can only help you. Again, it is not "specialized knowledge," but knowledge that permeates the entire business world and global economy.
For example, one widespread truth is the distinction I was discussing in the post you cited: the distinction of money spent on maintenance & necessary expenses vs. the money spent on growth. This is a huge idea, and it shows up not just in one kind of industry, but across almost every sector of the economy. This would be absolutely intuitive and second-nature to anyone in the business world. In a way, the CR is a test of how much your logic matches the logic of someone in the business world, and with most official questions, good instincts about the push & pull of the real business world will guide you in eliminating some answer and choosing others. It's true that, in an
inference question, the answer should follow strictly from what is said in the prompt, but having good instincts for the business world will help you to isolate that answer choice quickly and efficiently.
See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside KnowledgeMany students don't understand this distinction, and in fact, some authors of those substandard books don't understand this either. The business world has its own way of thinking and analyzing, and the entire GMAT is very much about measuring your "business intelligence."
Does this make sense?
Mike