Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer te

Question

Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

A. Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.

B. Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.

C. There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.

D. Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.

E. Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

This is from KAPLAN CAT.

whiplash2411 · Accepted Answer

Gambling experts say:

Provided there's advanced enough technology: Skilled technician will win almost every time.

whiplash2411 · Answer

I think for CR you need to look at the nitty-gritty details. The second choice in this question for instance - that would be mildly tricky and I am hazarding a guess that it's an answer that most people would choose but get wrong.

akshathbs · Answer

conclusion :: such a claim could never be evaluated,
ask urself ? wht is " such a claim"..?
ans- such a claim is tht thr is no technology tht can help u in assessing the correct performance of the gambler BECAUSE evn the losses would be tempered..

so anything tht helps u in assessing the performance of a gambler is ur ans ..

go ahead ans solve ans should be B..

amannain1 · Answer

Option C is correct.
In my opinion, C tells us that there is a logical link between the technology available and the success rate achievable. Thus, at least in future, such evaluation could be possible when such advanced technology is available.

HTH
-- 
Aman

yossarian84 · Answer

Hi Whiplash... I don't think I understood your explanation of the correct answer. I get really lost it in such timekiller CRs

. Though I got it correct, my reasoning isn't in line with the others. My take on this is: We have to prove that author is wrong - i.e. gambling experts' claim can be evaluated. i.e. there is no scope of blame game when there is a loss. i.e. the output is measurable . C states that there is a direct correlation between technology and the level of success achieved by a technician. Hence, proficiency can be measured. This is sufficient to prove the author wrong. Thats why i thought its the correct answer. Am i missing something??

aimkp · Answer

argmnt :

advcd tech -> gmblr wins gamblng
But this can not be evaluted 
If relation b\w 2 items establishes then this activity can be evaluated

ans = C that establishes relation b\w 2 items so one can be evaluated wrt to other

bhandariavi · Answer

B is not the answer because - we don't have gambling experts opinion if the equipment will be produced later on. 
C is the answer.

suhi · Answer

what does the last sentence of the argument mean:
Yet such a claim could never be evaluated,  for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

cant get how the clause after 'for' is related to 'Yet such a claim could never be evaluated'

plz help

summer101 · Answer

Premise:
With advanced computer technology = success for skilled T
Author Disagrees, as losses can be bcoz immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.
How can this be untrue? If there is a known correlation between technology & success

C. There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it. ---> Talks about correlation. If you know x advance = x success. you cant blame technology. 
D. Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions. --> Only Certain rare configurations of computer data = success Not necessary computer technology or skill

srilekha23 · Answer

Please explain how option C is correct.

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

Clause after 'for' provides the reasoning for why such a claim could never be evaluated.
The reasoning is that in case a technician lose, we may say either of:
1)the technician was not skilled (We need a skilled technician for the mentioned claim and there's no clear line to define skill here)
2)the computer was not sufficiently advanced (We need a sufficiently advanced computer and there's no clear line to define sufficiency here)

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

The question asks for a "basis" for arguing against it.
Option C tells us about a direct correlation... which simply means that as skill and/or advancement in computer technology increases, the proportion of wins increases. This tells us that if we keep increasing skills and/or technology advancement, we can reach a point where we will almost always win.

A_Nishith · Answer

"ACCURATE EXPLANATION"

To determine which option would be most useful for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated, let's analyze each option in the context of the author's argument.
 The author claims that the contention that advanced computer technology will allow technicians to win almost every time cannot be evaluated because any losses can always be attributed to either immature technology or lack of technician proficiency.

A. Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.

This statement shows that some level of success is already being achieved with advanced computers, but it doesn't directly address the ability to evaluate the contention of winning almost every time. It provides partial evidence of success but not conclusive evaluation capability.

B. Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.

This supports the author's claim rather than argues against it. If experts admit the technology is not yet possible, it aligns with the notion that losses can be blamed on immature technology.

C. There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.

This shows a relationship between technology sophistication and success, suggesting that as technology improves, so does gambling success. However, it doesn't directly address the ability to evaluate the specific claim of winning almost every time.

D. Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.

This suggests that there are specific instances where technology can be used to make precise predictions. This could be useful in arguing that with the right technology and data configurations, the contention could be evaluated.

E. Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

This indicates that skill alone can lead to consistent success, but it doesn't address the specific claim about advanced computer technology enabling almost guaranteed wins.

Among the options, D is the most useful as it provides a basis for precise gambling predictions using advanced technology.
 If certain configurations of data can lead to precise predictions, it implies that the technology's effectiveness can indeed be evaluated when these configurations are met, thus directly countering the author's claim that the contention cannot be evaluated.

The correct answer is: D.

Hoehenheim · Answer

Agreed. Both C and D are close however C only helps in the technological aspect, not on the technician's ability angle of the author's argument.
D however, says that sometimes some configurations allow for precise predictions. This helps prove the clause to a greater extent i believe.

Can someone help elaborate on this?  MartyMurray   ScottTargetTestPrep   KarishmaB   GMATNinja

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

Hi!

can some expert please share their insights on this Q

Essentially the stem says that the gambler may have lost the bet due to his poor expertise and he can blame this poor expertise on immature tech, when infact the immature may have given him the correct betting insights

now C tells us that an advanced tech will lead to higher success of betting success

but imagine this, what if the same situation follows? that the advanced tech does give correct insights into betting but the gambler following his poor expertise still lost the bet and blamed it on the computer?

this can still happen , so it does not affect the conclusion

now if you look at C,

we know that there are some configurations that can provide "precise" predictions

now what this will do is, despite these precise predictions if the gambler still loses, he will not be able to blame it on the computer anymore

because the configurations provided are precise and hence we know the gambler will not be able to shift the blame

DmitryFarber  - can you please help solving this one, will be really helpful

MartyMurray 
 GMATNinja 
 KarishmaB

Thank you!!

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

This is a tricky one, but it's important to start (as always) by looking for flaws in the argument. The author thinks that the claim can't be evaluated. What does that mean? They think we'll never be able to know if it's true or false. Why not? Because if the predictions don't work, people can just blame the technology or the user. That does seem like an easy way to escape having your claim disproven. It's like saying "We just don't see unicorns because we're not worthy. If we were ever really worthy, unicorns would appear." It's hard to argue with that, because no matter how many times unicorns fail to show up, someone can just say "See? We're not worthy!"

But isn't there a huge flaw in that reasoning? WHAT IF UNICORNS SHOW UP? In other words, if we DO see the predicted thing, can't the claim be evaluated then? That's a pretty big consideration that the author is overlooking. Maybe people will actually build computer models that can be reliably used to win at horse racing. Then the claim could certainly be evaluated--it would clearly be true! So that's the main thing the author is overlooking and THAT is what C addresses.

C is outright telling us that the better our computer technology gets, the more successful people will be at using it for gambling. So at some point the projected success will have to show up, and at that point the claim can definitely be evaluated--positively!

A few notes:

*This is a pretty transparent rewrite of an official question. The trap answer people like here (D) is still there in the original, as answer choice A.  Meteorologists say that if only they could design an accurate mathemat : Critical Reasoning Practice Questions (CR)

* RiyaJ0032  You are describing exactly what the author says will happen. If people fail, it will be blamed on user error. And of course if the user really was to blame, that would be valid. But that doesn't change the effect of C. Remember that the job of our answer isn't to make any alternative to what we want impossible! We just need to establish that there may well be a way to evaluate the claim. C tells us that we could reach success, and then the claim could be evaluated. (And surely, if there were a near-perfect gambling system, SOME people would be using it successfully.)

*D is of no use at all (just like A in the original question). It just tells us that there is such thing as data that can be used for precise predictions. We don't know if such data exists for horse racing. Further, and perhaps more importantly, this doesn't tell us anything about the ACCURACY of the predictions! Any fool can make a precise prediction. I can say that tomorrow at 1:45:17 pm Pacific time, a unicorn named Colleen will walk into a specific bank and withdraw $49.25 in nickels. That doesn't tell you anything about whether I'm right! (But if this happens, I'll quite teaching GMAT and try to use my psychic powers for good.)

egmat · Answer

I can see why you're debating between C and D - this is a subtle but important distinction that many test-takers miss. Let me help clarify the key insight here.

Critical Distinction: What Are We Actually Trying to Do?
 
The question asks what would argue  against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated . We're NOT trying to prove the gambling experts are right - we're trying to show their claim  can be tested/evaluated .

The author says: "This claim could never be evaluated because any losses would be blamed on either bad technology OR bad technician skills."
To counter this, we need something that provides an  objective way to evaluate  the claim, despite these potential excuses.

Why Answer Choice C Works:
 
Choice C states:  "There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it."
 
This gives us an evaluation method! Here's why:
 
 If there's a  direct correlation , we can measure technology sophistication objectively 
 We can track success rates across different technology levels 
 We can test whether advancing technology leads to predictable improvements 
 This creates a testable relationship that bypasses the excuse-making problem

Even if someone loses, we can now evaluate whether their technology level predicts their success rate. The correlation provides an  objective evaluation framework .
 
Why Answer Choice D Doesn't Work:

Choice D states:  "Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions."

This doesn't help us evaluate the overall claim because:
 
 It only talks about "rare" configurations 
 It doesn't establish any systematic evaluation method 
 Someone could still blame losses on not having these "rare configurations" 
 It doesn't address how to evaluate the technician's skill component  
 
Your Analysis Error:  You were looking for which answer better  proves  the gambling experts' claim (that technology will enable consistent wins). But that's not what we need - we need something that shows the claim  can be evaluated/tested , regardless of whether it's true or false.
 
Key Takeaway for Similar Questions:

When a CR question asks what "argues against" a claim about something being  impossible to evaluate/test/prove , look for answer choices that provide:
 
 Objective measurement criteria 
 Testable correlations or relationships 
 Systematic evaluation methods

The correct answer is  C  because it provides exactly this - a measurable correlation that allows for objective evaluation of the gambling experts' claim.

mkeshri185 · Answer

why not answer D?it says the with rare computer tech we can be sure of the win prediction.

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

You can read Dmitry's explanation in the forum

He has stated precisely why D is not the answer

the problem is you are interpreting D incorrectly

Where has the option said we can be sure to win the prediction? This is an assumption on your part while reading D

it does not state this

it says that some configurations allow for precise prediction , this does not mean that the computer will give us "accurate prediction"

precise prediction means some prediction but with more details

for eg, Quoting one of Dmitry's example - "  I can say that tomorrow at 1:45:17 pm Pacific time, a unicorn named Colleen will walk into a specific bank and withdraw $49.25 in nickels"

notice the details? this is a precise prediction

but just because it's precise, we cannot say it's accurate

so D has no bearing on the conclusion

Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer te

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer te

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards