Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Jul 2710:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Are you struggling with the GMAT verbal section? Do tricky questions and lengthy passages overwhelm you? Don't worry—I've got you covered! In this video, I'll provide a detailed, actionable plan to help you significantly boost your verbal score.
Jul 2711:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 2508:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
More and more TTP students are earning impressive scores on the GMAT. Now is the perfect time to join the many GMAT students who made the switch to TTP and surpassed their wildest expectations on test day.- Jul 28
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
We will learn how to guess an answer choice better on the GMAT. If you are running out of time and want to guess on a few questions, these effective techniques will help you in making a smart guess. - Jul 28
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. - Jul 31
05:55 AM PDT
-12:30 PM PDT
MBA Application Walkthrough and Essay Review. You will have a chance to hear from experts covering the Top 15 MBA programs, covering details of the application and essays. 
Jul 3110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Save 20% on Target Test Prep and Score in the 100th Percentile in GMAT Verbal! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we
[#permalink]
05 Dec 2018, 09:12
05 Dec 2018, 09:12
29
Bookmarks
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
28% (02:30) correct
72%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 700
sessions
If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we will not be able to determine this anytime in the near future unless some of these beings are at least as intelligent as humans. We will not be able to send spacecraft to planets outside our solar system anytime in the near future, and any sentient being on another planet capable of communicating with us anytime in the near future would have to be at least as intelligent as we are.
The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) There are no sentient beings on planets in our solar system other than those on Earth.
(B) Any beings that are at least as intelligent as humans would want to communicate with sentient beings outside their own solar systems.
(C) If there is a sentient being on another planet that is as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to send spacecraft to the being’s planet anytime in the near future.
(D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.
(E) Any sentient beings on planets outside our solar system that are at least as intelligent as humans would be capable of communicating with us.
The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) There are no sentient beings on planets in our solar system other than those on Earth.
(B) Any beings that are at least as intelligent as humans would want to communicate with sentient beings outside their own solar systems.
(C) If there is a sentient being on another planet that is as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to send spacecraft to the being’s planet anytime in the near future.
(D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.
(E) Any sentient beings on planets outside our solar system that are at least as intelligent as humans would be capable of communicating with us.
Re: If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we
[#permalink]
14 Dec 2018, 10:11
14 Dec 2018, 10:11
6
Bookmarks
Manhattan prep explanation
What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is a Sufficient Assumption question. The correct answer choice, if added to the premises, will completely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Break down the Stimulus:
Let’s be honest. This is potentially a tough question. Some people might arrive at the correct answer using general, intuitive reasoning, but to fully explain why the correct answer is correct we need to look at the underlying conditional logic.
On the other hand, this isn’t a standard Sufficient Assumption question based on conditional logic, where we predict the correct answer by linking the conditional statements and spotting the missing link in the chain of logic. This “sentient beings” argument contains a few twists.
To have any success at all with this question we first have to identify the argument core—the basic structure of the argument. The first sentence is the conclusion. The second sentence contains two premises, separated by “and.” There aren’t any specific keywords like "because" or "thus" pointing to premises or the conclusion, so we have to determine this through context, by seeing which of the statements appears to support the other.
Once we understand the basic structure of the argument, we can examine the reasoning.
There is an approach to this question that we might call the “Krav Maga” approach (a term I’m borrowing from my esteemed colleague, Gerald McMillan). Two concepts, “beings on other planets” and “at least as intelligent as humans,” are mentioned in the conclusion as well as the premises. “Determining if there are sentient beings on other planets” is unique to the conclusion, while “sending spacecraft to other planets” and “communicating with us” are unique to the premises. To take the Krav Maga approach, I’ll focus on these three unique concepts. I’ll eliminate any answer choices that fail to connect them, look for one that does, and hope for a knockout.
For those wanting a more thorough explanation, here it is:
The conclusion is a conditional statement. Both “if” and “unless” can indicate conditional logic, but in this case, “unless” is the conditional operator. The conclusion is about whether or not we can determine something, and “if there are sentient beings on other planets outside our solar system” is the thing that we are trying to determine. If we recognize “unless” as the conditional indicator, we can express the conclusion as a simple “if-then” statement:
C: able to determine if there are beings —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
(The entire argument is about the near future, and beings on planets outside of our solar system, so we’ll leave those details out for the moment.)
Now let’s look at the premises:
P1: cannot send spacecraft to other planets
P2: beings able to communicate with us —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
For the second premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us
This missing link would normally be the correct answer to this type of question. But what about the first premise? How does that fit in? As mattsherman pointed out in his explanation, it’s difficult to predict an answer using a strictly formulaic conditional logic approach. This is where we need to step back and take a more general look at the reasoning.
For the first premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
cannot send spacecraft to other planets —> not able to determine if there are beings
The contrapositive of this is:
able to determine if there are beings —> can send spacecraft to other planets
For the conclusion to follow logically, we have to consider the assumptions implicit in both of the premises:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
Any prephrase?
If we’ve identified the exact assumption, we’re looking for:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
With the Krav Maga approach, we’re hoping for a knockout by eliminating any answers that fail to connect “able to determine if there are beings” with “communicating” and “spacecraft.”
Correct answer:
The correct answer is (D).
Answer choice analysis:
A) Neither our premises nor our conclusion is about planets other than Earth in our own solar system. This answer choice is irrelevant.
B) Our second premise, and the related assumption, deal strictly with others being capable of communicating with us. Whether they want to or not is irrelevant.
C) This answer choice tells us: beings at least as intelligent as humans —> cannot send spacecraft. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s also irrelevant.
D) This is a rewording of the exact assumption we need. If you’re practicing Krav Maga, this is the only answer choice that contains all three concepts we want.
E) This is a reversal of the second premise. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s irrelevant.
Takeaway/Pattern: There are several ways to choose the correct answer for this question. The best method for you will depend on your strengths and overall goals. The Krav Maga approach isn't always guaranteed to work, but if you're stuck it allows you to at least make an educated guess without spending an excessive amount of time on the question.
What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is a Sufficient Assumption question. The correct answer choice, if added to the premises, will completely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Break down the Stimulus:
Let’s be honest. This is potentially a tough question. Some people might arrive at the correct answer using general, intuitive reasoning, but to fully explain why the correct answer is correct we need to look at the underlying conditional logic.
On the other hand, this isn’t a standard Sufficient Assumption question based on conditional logic, where we predict the correct answer by linking the conditional statements and spotting the missing link in the chain of logic. This “sentient beings” argument contains a few twists.
To have any success at all with this question we first have to identify the argument core—the basic structure of the argument. The first sentence is the conclusion. The second sentence contains two premises, separated by “and.” There aren’t any specific keywords like "because" or "thus" pointing to premises or the conclusion, so we have to determine this through context, by seeing which of the statements appears to support the other.
Once we understand the basic structure of the argument, we can examine the reasoning.
There is an approach to this question that we might call the “Krav Maga” approach (a term I’m borrowing from my esteemed colleague, Gerald McMillan). Two concepts, “beings on other planets” and “at least as intelligent as humans,” are mentioned in the conclusion as well as the premises. “Determining if there are sentient beings on other planets” is unique to the conclusion, while “sending spacecraft to other planets” and “communicating with us” are unique to the premises. To take the Krav Maga approach, I’ll focus on these three unique concepts. I’ll eliminate any answer choices that fail to connect them, look for one that does, and hope for a knockout.
For those wanting a more thorough explanation, here it is:
The conclusion is a conditional statement. Both “if” and “unless” can indicate conditional logic, but in this case, “unless” is the conditional operator. The conclusion is about whether or not we can determine something, and “if there are sentient beings on other planets outside our solar system” is the thing that we are trying to determine. If we recognize “unless” as the conditional indicator, we can express the conclusion as a simple “if-then” statement:
C: able to determine if there are beings —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
(The entire argument is about the near future, and beings on planets outside of our solar system, so we’ll leave those details out for the moment.)
Now let’s look at the premises:
P1: cannot send spacecraft to other planets
P2: beings able to communicate with us —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
For the second premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us
This missing link would normally be the correct answer to this type of question. But what about the first premise? How does that fit in? As mattsherman pointed out in his explanation, it’s difficult to predict an answer using a strictly formulaic conditional logic approach. This is where we need to step back and take a more general look at the reasoning.
For the first premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
cannot send spacecraft to other planets —> not able to determine if there are beings
The contrapositive of this is:
able to determine if there are beings —> can send spacecraft to other planets
For the conclusion to follow logically, we have to consider the assumptions implicit in both of the premises:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
Any prephrase?
If we’ve identified the exact assumption, we’re looking for:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
With the Krav Maga approach, we’re hoping for a knockout by eliminating any answers that fail to connect “able to determine if there are beings” with “communicating” and “spacecraft.”
Correct answer:
The correct answer is (D).
Answer choice analysis:
A) Neither our premises nor our conclusion is about planets other than Earth in our own solar system. This answer choice is irrelevant.
B) Our second premise, and the related assumption, deal strictly with others being capable of communicating with us. Whether they want to or not is irrelevant.
C) This answer choice tells us: beings at least as intelligent as humans —> cannot send spacecraft. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s also irrelevant.
D) This is a rewording of the exact assumption we need. If you’re practicing Krav Maga, this is the only answer choice that contains all three concepts we want.
E) This is a reversal of the second premise. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s irrelevant.
Takeaway/Pattern: There are several ways to choose the correct answer for this question. The best method for you will depend on your strengths and overall goals. The Krav Maga approach isn't always guaranteed to work, but if you're stuck it allows you to at least make an educated guess without spending an excessive amount of time on the question.
General Discussion
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 556
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.6
WE:Operations (Consumer Products)
Re: If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we
[#permalink]
06 Dec 2018, 03:05
06 Dec 2018, 03:05
3
Kudos
TYPE: Sufficient vs Necessary Assumption
Understand:
-we will not be able to send spacecraft
- to communicate, the being would have to be as intelligent.
COCNLUSION : We will NOT be able to determine existence of beings ,UNLESS they are as intelligent as humans
-assumption Q
think :
We are told that we cannot send spacecraft and the beings in order to communicate with us would have to be as intelligent . The conclusion is "determine existence of beings" . There is a logical jump here. We are only told that we cant go there and beigns have to be intelligent BUT is that the ONLY WAY TO KNOW THE EXISTENCE?? author makes a jump from inability to travel and beings ability to communicate TO determining existence. WHAT if we can sit at home and with some weird iron man technology can know the existence of beigns (thanos) ?? in this case even if Thanos cannot communicate with us, iron man can still sit at home(without travelling in spacecraft) with some weird technology !! So the author here is assuming that there is NO OTHER WAY WE CAN DETERMINE EXISTENCE .unless we send a spacecraft or beings are intelligent enough to communicate
(BTW hail hydra !)
Also, we are told that beings coomunication and space travel are SUFFICIENT consition for determining existence (result). BUT is that a necessary consdtion?? what if there are other ways too??
Framework (if you cannot prethink an assumprion ) : I want an answer choice which will tell me that there are other ways to determine existence WHEN i negate the ans choices . I want answer chooice which will tell me that given the consitions I CANNOT determine existence.
(Framework analysis will help you in telling WHAT EXACTLY you are looking for.. trust me you want to knwo what you are looking for)
-THEN why is author even presenting this argeumnt?? Eliminate
-What beings want has nothing to do with "determining existence" ... Negate: No beings want to communicate with us. The entire argument goes to a toss. if beings dont want to talk to us then why are we even talking about their intelligent. Additionally, even if any being is interested to talk to us, the conclusion may still break becasue we still have high technology to communicate with them..so we can determine their existence.
- ALREADY mentioned in the passage. Plus : does not talk about determing existence
- ASSUMPTION . Please read "think"
- We already know this. The premises tell us that "unless they are as intelligent, they cannot communicate"..This ans choice is just reword .
Negation : no sentient beings...as intelligent... would NOT BE capable of communicating !! >> Conclusion is strengthened. a negation must weaken.
HAIL HYDRA !!
Quote:
If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we will not be able to determine this anytime in the near future unless some of these beings are at least as intelligent as humans. We will not be able to send spacecraft to planets outside our solar system anytime in the near future, and any sentient being on another planet capable of communicating with us anytime in the near future would have to be at least as intelligent as we are.
Understand:
-we will not be able to send spacecraft
- to communicate, the being would have to be as intelligent.
COCNLUSION : We will NOT be able to determine existence of beings ,UNLESS they are as intelligent as humans
Quote:
The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
-assumption Q
think :
We are told that we cannot send spacecraft and the beings in order to communicate with us would have to be as intelligent . The conclusion is "determine existence of beings" . There is a logical jump here. We are only told that we cant go there and beigns have to be intelligent BUT is that the ONLY WAY TO KNOW THE EXISTENCE?? author makes a jump from inability to travel and beings ability to communicate TO determining existence. WHAT if we can sit at home and with some weird iron man technology can know the existence of beigns (thanos) ?? in this case even if Thanos cannot communicate with us, iron man can still sit at home(without travelling in spacecraft) with some weird technology !! So the author here is assuming that there is NO OTHER WAY WE CAN DETERMINE EXISTENCE .unless we send a spacecraft or beings are intelligent enough to communicate
(BTW hail hydra !)
Also, we are told that beings coomunication and space travel are SUFFICIENT consition for determining existence (result). BUT is that a necessary consdtion?? what if there are other ways too??
Framework (if you cannot prethink an assumprion ) : I want an answer choice which will tell me that there are other ways to determine existence WHEN i negate the ans choices . I want answer chooice which will tell me that given the consitions I CANNOT determine existence.
(Framework analysis will help you in telling WHAT EXACTLY you are looking for.. trust me you want to knwo what you are looking for)
Quote:
A) There are no sentient beings on planets in our solar system other than those on Earth.
-THEN why is author even presenting this argeumnt?? Eliminate
Quote:
(B) Any beings that are at least as intelligent as humans would want to communicate with sentient beings outside their own solar systems.
-What beings want has nothing to do with "determining existence" ... Negate: No beings want to communicate with us. The entire argument goes to a toss. if beings dont want to talk to us then why are we even talking about their intelligent. Additionally, even if any being is interested to talk to us, the conclusion may still break becasue we still have high technology to communicate with them..so we can determine their existence.
Quote:
(C) If there is a sentient being on another planet that is as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to send spacecraft to the being’s planet anytime in the near future.
- ALREADY mentioned in the passage. Plus : does not talk about determing existence
Quote:
(D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.
- ASSUMPTION . Please read "think"
Quote:
(E) Any sentient beings on planets outside our solar system that are at least as intelligent as humans would be capable of communicating with us.
- We already know this. The premises tell us that "unless they are as intelligent, they cannot communicate"..This ans choice is just reword .
Negation : no sentient beings...as intelligent... would NOT BE capable of communicating !! >> Conclusion is strengthened. a negation must weaken.
HAIL HYDRA !!
