NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 09:10 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 09:10
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2 
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63666 [1]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   12 Apr 2017, 08:38
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
Ziyuen, +1 for identifying the source of the question! LSAT used to license their questions to GMAT test-prep companies, but they stopped doing that a year or two ago, interestingly.

Anyway, on to your question. There are plenty of pretty good explanations already on this thread, so I'm not going to rehash all of them here -- but I do think that Tommy Wallach's explanation is spot-on, though I guess he could have said more about (E).

Remember that in an assumption question, you're looking for something that's necessary to draw the conclusion. It might not be 100% satisfying, or 100% airtight. It may not be the ONLY thing you need to draw the conclusion. But without it, the conclusion wouldn't work.

So... (E):

Quote:
(E) The 45 most recently founded companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.


This sounds nice and everything, but you definitely don't want to confuse "enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience" with an explosion in the actual audience. It's fine if the 45 companies were founded when potential audience members were excited, but that does nothing to convince us that there has been a real explosion "of public interest in, and enjoyment of, opera over the past three decades." The enthusiasm (of a merely "potential" audience) when the companies were founded has little to do with any "explosion" of general public interest over a period of 30 years.

More importantly, (E) simply isn't necessary. You don't need to know anything about the enthusiasm levels when the companies were founded in order to show that there's been an explosion in public interest in opera. If you assume the opposite -- i.e., that there was little enthusiasm when the companies started -- it would still be possible that there was an explosion of interest later. (Real example: Starbucks was founded in 1971. Nobody gave a crap until the mid-1990s.)

But (B) is absolutely necessary, as others here have indicated. If the opposite of (B) is true -- that more opera companies closed than opened in the 30-year period -- then the argument falls apart in a big hurry.

I hope this helps!
User avatar
B
uzumakinaruto444
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 1137
Location: India
Schools: NUS '23
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   28 Feb 2019, 18:34
Hi VeritasKarishma,

According to the premise "70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America,45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years."
Then why is B correct when it negates this premise by saying that fewer than 45 had been active and ceased operations?
Thanks in advance.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64915 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   28 Feb 2019, 21:14
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
applebear wrote:
Hi VeritasKarishma,

According to the premise "70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America,45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years."
Then why is B correct when it negates this premise by saying that fewer than 45 had been active and ceased operations?
Thanks in advance.


(B) does not negate the premise.

Premise: Of the 70 currently active companies, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.

Currently 70 companies are active. Of these 45 were founded over the last 30 years (say 1989 to now). So the argument seems to be saying that many companies were founded in the last 30 years so interest in opera has gone up in this time.

(B) There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago (before 1989) and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.

This option says that fewer than 45 companies were active before 1989 and ceased operations in the last 30 years. If this were not true, think what happens.
Say 60 companies which were active before 1989 ceased operations and are not active now. 45 new companies started after 1989 and are active now. Can we say that there has been an explosion of interest in opera? No. Even if 45 new companies started, 60 old companies shut down. So overall there are fewer companies now, perhaps because there are fewer opera lovers now.
User avatar
B
uzumakinaruto444
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 51
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 1137
Location: India
Schools: NUS '23
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   28 Feb 2019, 21:32
VeritasKarishma wrote:
applebear wrote:
Hi VeritasKarishma,

According to the premise "70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America,45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years."
Then why is B correct when it negates this premise by saying that fewer than 45 had been active and ceased operations?
Thanks in advance.


(B) does not negate the premise.

Premise: Of the 70 currently active companies, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.

Currently 70 companies are active. Of these 45 were founded over the last 30 years (say 1989 to now). So the argument seems to be saying that many companies were founded in the last 30 years so interest in opera has gone up in this time.

(B) There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago (before 1989) and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.

This option says that fewer than 45 companies were active before 1989 and ceased operations in the last 30 years. If this were not true, think what happens.
Say 60 companies which were active before 1989 ceased operations and are not active now. 45 new companies started after 1989 and are active now. Can we say that there has been an explosion of interest in opera? No. Even if 45 new companies started, 60 old companies shut down. So overall there are fewer companies now, perhaps because there are fewer opera lovers now.


Oh all right, got it! Thank you :blushing

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
S
kornn
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 365
Own Kudos [?]: 78 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
Send PM
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 13 Jan 2020, 01:28
VeritasKarishma wrote:
mindsprout wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma

I read your post
The reason below why I do not find A as the correct answer

Here we are talking about only the currently 'active' 70 professional opera companies, so the companies which are inactive or closed are not the set we are discussing in the question, we can say that if 45 are active now in last 30 years (which remained active after 50 were closed and 95 in total were founded) can still show that there is an explosion in interest because we don't know how many companies failed before 30 years to keep the 25 companies active (70 = 45 + 25), probably there were 200 companies founded before 30 years and only 25 remained active, because people weren't that interested and hence now there is an explosion of interest because approx. 50% of the companies founded in last 30 decades remained active and survived, as compared to the 12.5% of companies that remained active before 30 decades (here 12.5% means 25 out of 200 and approx. 50% means 45 out of 95)


My post tells you that the answer is (B), not (A). I am assuming it is a typo in your post above.

The probability of a place succeeding depends on many many factors - location, policies, management, quality of product, service etc.
Continuing with the example of a pizza parlor, it may shut down because the recipe of the sauce is not good - pizza might still be very popular. So survival rate is not a measure of popularity of a product. But number of outlets surviving are. If last year, there were 100 pizza outlets surviving in a city and this year there are 200 surviving then we can say that pizza is more popular now than before.


Dear VeritasKarishma,

Q1. I know that the post above is 4 years old now. However, if you could remember, could you please explain more on the highlighted portion above?

For example, let's say over the course of the last 30 years 1000 were founded. According to the passage, 45 are still survive. The survival rate is 4.5% Here, why don't we really care about the survival rate, i.e. the total 1000 founded?

Q2. From the passage, does it mean that 70 - 45 = 25 currently active companies were founded MORE THAN 30 years ago?
(and since we do not know how many companies existed more than 30 years ago, we cannot calculate SURVIVAL RATE for the concerned batch?)

Thank you as always :please :please :please

Originally posted by kornn on 12 Jan 2020, 03:24.
Last edited by kornn on 13 Jan 2020, 01:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64915 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   12 Jan 2020, 23:23
Expert Reply
varotkorn wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
mindsprout wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma

I read your post
The reason below why I do not find A as the correct answer

Here we are talking about only the currently 'active' 70 professional opera companies, so the companies which are inactive or closed are not the set we are discussing in the question, we can say that if 45 are active now in last 30 years (which remained active after 50 were closed and 95 in total were founded) can still show that there is an explosion in interest because we don't know how many companies failed before 30 years to keep the 25 companies active (70 = 45 + 25), probably there were 200 companies founded before 30 years and only 25 remained active, because people weren't that interested and hence now there is an explosion of interest because approx. 50% of the companies founded in last 30 decades remained active and survived, as compared to the 12.5% of companies that remained active before 30 decades (here 12.5% means 25 out of 200 and approx. 50% means 45 out of 95)


My post tells you that the answer is (B), not (A). I am assuming it is a typo in your post above.

The probability of a place succeeding depends on many many factors - location, policies, management, quality of product, service etc.
Continuing with the example of a pizza parlor, it may shut down because the recipe of the sauce is not good - pizza might still be very popular. So survival rate is not a measure of popularity of a product. But number of outlets surviving are. If last year, there were 100 pizza outlets surviving in a city and this year there are 200 surviving then we can say that pizza is more popular now than before.


Dear VeritasKarishma,

Q1. I know that the post above is 4 years old now. However, if you could remember, could you please explain more on the highlighted portion above?

For example, let's say over the course of the last 30 years 1000 were founded. According to the passage, 45 are still survive. The survival rate is 4.5% Here, why don't we really care about the survival rate, i.e. the total 1000 founded?

Q2. From the passage, does it mean that 70 - 45 = 15 currently active companies were founded MORE THAN 30 years ago?
(and since we do not know how many companies existed more than 30 years ago, we cannot calculate SURVIVAL RATE for the concerned batch?)

Thank you as always :please :please :please


Last year, 50 new pizza outlets opened in my neighbourhood but only 20% survived (so only 10 new places survived). Can I say that pizza is no longer popular in my area? No. What if 100 new pizza places have opened up now?
Perhaps pizza is very popular but the outlets closed down because they were not maintaining good quality or hygiene etc. We need to keep in mind how many new places are coming up. What if 2 new places are coming up in place of every one that is shut down? We cannot say then that the product is not popular.

The passage tells us that of the 70 active companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 years. So 25 were founded more than 30 years ago. But that doesn't concern us. We should think about what happened in the last 30 years (because our conclusion says that public interest has increased in the last 3 decades). If in the last 3 decades only 10 previous companies shut down but 45 were founded, we can say that interest has increased. But if in the last 3 decades 100 previous companies were shut down but 45 were founded, then the interest seems to have decreased.
User avatar
S
kornn
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 365
Own Kudos [?]: 78 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
Send PM
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   13 Jan 2020, 00:22
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Last year, 50 new pizza outlets opened in my neighbourhood but only 20% survived (so only 10 new places survived). Can I say that pizza is no longer popular in my area? No. What if 100 new pizza places have opened up now?
Perhaps pizza is very popular but the outlets closed down because they were not maintaining good quality or hygiene etc. We need to keep in mind how many new places are coming up. What if 2 new places are coming up in place of every one that is shut down? We cannot say then that the product is not popular.

The passage tells us that of the 70 active companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 years. So 25 were founded more than 30 years ago. But that doesn't concern us. We should think about what happened in the last 30 years (because our conclusion says that public interest has increased in the last 3 decades). If in the last 3 decades only 10 previous companies shut down but 45 were founded, we can say that interest has increased. But if in the last 3 decades 100 previous companies were shut down but 45 were founded, then the interest seems to have decreased.


Dear VeritasKarishma,

Thank you for your reply :please :please :please
I have one follow-up question.

According to the highlighted portion above, I suppose that "previous companies" mean the same thing as companies that had been active 30 years ago in the correct answer.

My questions are:
Q1. Does companies that had been active 30 years ago mean the companies that were founded MORE than 30 years ago?
Q2. Are the 25 companies according to the passage also in this category?

Thank you as always Ma'am :)
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64915 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   13 Jan 2020, 21:38
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
varotkorn wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Last year, 50 new pizza outlets opened in my neighbourhood but only 20% survived (so only 10 new places survived). Can I say that pizza is no longer popular in my area? No. What if 100 new pizza places have opened up now?
Perhaps pizza is very popular but the outlets closed down because they were not maintaining good quality or hygiene etc. We need to keep in mind how many new places are coming up. What if 2 new places are coming up in place of every one that is shut down? We cannot say then that the product is not popular.

The passage tells us that of the 70 active companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 years. So 25 were founded more than 30 years ago. But that doesn't concern us. We should think about what happened in the last 30 years (because our conclusion says that public interest has increased in the last 3 decades). If in the last 3 decades only 10 previous companies shut down but 45 were founded, we can say that interest has increased. But if in the last 3 decades 100 previous companies were shut down but 45 were founded, then the interest seems to have decreased.


Dear VeritasKarishma,

Thank you for your reply :please :please :please
I have one follow-up question.

According to the highlighted portion above, I suppose that "previous companies" mean the same thing as companies that had been active 30 years ago in the correct answer.

My questions are:
Q1. Does companies that had been active 30 years ago mean the companies that were founded MORE than 30 years ago?
Q2. Are the 25 companies according to the passage also in this category?

Thank you as always Ma'am :)


Yes, previous companies means those that were founded more than 30 years ago and were active 30 years ago.
Yes, the 25 companies were founded more than 30 years ago and are still active.
User avatar
S
Mavisdu1017
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Posts: 374
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 226
Send PM
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 08 Apr 2022, 00:38
KarishmaB wrote:
imhimanshu wrote:
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of,opera over the last three decades. The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America,45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.

The reasoning above assumes which one of the following?

a) All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable options.

b) There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.

c) There has not been a corresponding increase in the number of professional companies devoted to other performing arts.

d) The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades.

e) The 45 most recently founded companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.

Can someone provide a reasoning over choice E


You have to focus on the conclusion.
Conclusion: Over the last 30 years, there has been an explosion of interest in Opera.

What does that mean? It means that the interest has increased manifold in the last 30 yrs (focus on the word 'increased')

How does the author support his argument? By saying that out of the current 70 opera companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 yrs i.e. much more than half were found in the last 30 yrs.
What is the assumption? 50 opera companies did not shut shop in the last 30 yrs i.e. more than 45 companies did not close down. You need your assumption to be true for the conclusion to be true. If 50 companies had shut down in the past 30 yrs, we can't say that opera is gaining a following.

Think about it: You say, "Popularity of pizza is increasing every day. Every week, one new pizza place opens up in my neighborhood."
What is your assumption? That 2 pizza places do not shut down everyday in your neighborhood. It that were the case, then we cannot say that pizza is becoming more popular.

You don't need option (E) to be true for the conclusion to be true. Say, even if all 45 were not established as a result of enthusiasm (say, only 40 were established as a result of enthusiasm), even then it is possible that interest in opera has increased. You don't need (E) to be true to prove the conclusion. Hence it is not an assumption.


KarishmaB Hello expert, , I think the conclusion is: this fact (45 out of 70 professional opera companies currently active were founded over the course of the last 30 years) is the evidence of the explosion of interest in Opera.

There is a gap why this fact can be an evidence of the explosion? The assumption should bridge the gap and give an explanation, so E should be the assumption. We don’t care how this premise/fact is resulted from (what choice B says) cuz anyway it’s a fact.

Besides, in B : fewer than 45 professional opera companies were closed during the last 30 years, let’s say 44 opera companies were closed while 45 newly founded during the same period—>means the net increase is only one company. How does the only one net increase prove the explosion? So I don’t think this choice gives an good explanation of the reason (doesn’t bridge the gap well).
Would you mind to illuminate it further? Thanks.

Originally posted by Mavisdu1017 on 07 Apr 2022, 23:50.
Last edited by Mavisdu1017 on 08 Apr 2022, 00:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
S
Mavisdu1017
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Posts: 374
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 226
Send PM
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   08 Apr 2022, 00:10
GMATNinja wrote:
Ziyuen, +1 for identifying the source of the question! LSAT used to license their questions to GMAT test-prep companies, but they stopped doing that a year or two ago, interestingly.

Anyway, on to your question. There are plenty of pretty good explanations already on this thread, so I'm not going to rehash all of them here -- but I do think that Tommy Wallach's explanation is spot-on, though I guess he could have said more about (E).

Remember that in an assumption question, you're looking for something that's necessary to draw the conclusion. It might not be 100% satisfying, or 100% airtight. It may not be the ONLY thing you need to draw the conclusion. But without it, the conclusion wouldn't work.

So... (E):

Quote:
(E) The 45 most recently founded companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.


This sounds nice and everything, but you definitely don't want to confuse "enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience" with an explosion in the actual audience. It's fine if the 45 companies were founded when potential audience members were excited, but that does nothing to convince us that there has been a real explosion "of public interest in, and enjoyment of, opera over the past three decades." The enthusiasm (of a merely "potential" audience) when the companies were founded has little to do with any "explosion" of general public interest over a period of 30 years.

More importantly, (E) simply isn't necessary. You don't need to know anything about the enthusiasm levels when the companies were founded in order to show that there's been an explosion in public interest in opera. If you assume the opposite -- i.e., that there was little enthusiasm when the companies started -- it would still be possible that there was an explosion of interest later. (Real example: Starbucks was founded in 1971. Nobody gave a crap until the mid-1990s.)

But (B) is absolutely necessary, as others here have indicated. If the opposite of (B) is true -- that more opera companies closed than opened in the 30-year period -- then the argument falls apart in a big hurry.

I hope this helps!


GMATNinja Hello Ninja, I think the conclusion is: this fact (45 out of 70 professional opera companies currently active were founded over the course of the last 30 years) is the evidence of the explosion of interest in Opera.

There is a gap why this fact can be an evidence of the explosion? The assumption should bridge the gap and give an explanation, so E should be the assumption. We don’t care how this premise/fact is resulted from (what choice B says) cuz anyway it’s a fact.

Besides, in B : fewer than 45 professional opera companies were closed during the last 30 years, let’s say 44 opera companies were closed while 45 newly founded during the same period—>means the net increase is only one company. How does the only one net increase prove the explosion? So I don’t think this choice gives an good explanation of the reason (doesn’t bridge the gap well).
Would you mind to illuminate it further? Thanks.
User avatar
B
Deep32470
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2023
Posts: 92
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 283
Location: India
Send PM
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   16 Jul 2023, 04:14
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of,opera over the last three decades. The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.

The reasoning above assumes which one of the following?


(A) All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable options.

(B) There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.

(C) There has not been a corresponding increase in the number of professional companies devoted to other performing arts.

(D) The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades.

(E) The 45 most recently founded companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.

For me the bost viable options were to choose from either B or D. B says that 45 companies were set up in last 30 yrs hence there must be atleast 25 companies before that period.
Now suppose that there are exact 25 companies before 30 yrs then 45 companies added up in 30 yrs to make the current 70. However this contradicts the second part of the option B which says that some companies might have ceased operations. We will consider that and hold that up for some time.
However if there are less than 45 companies before 30 yrs, say 30 companies, then out of them 5 must ceased operations during the last 30 yrs to make the total count of current companies as 70 hence making our option B as valid one.

Now come to D, average sige might or might not increase, we can't decide upon that. It might be that before adding up of 45 companies, there were same audiences which after adding up of further 45 companies got distributed amongst them. Hence in my opinion, B sounds more apt
User avatar
P
sony1000
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 214
Own Kudos [?]: 180 [0]
Given Kudos: 218
Location: Fiji
Schools: IE
GPA: 1
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink] New post   17 Jul 2023, 08:08
B entertains the idea that possibly 44 opera companies (fewer than 45) went bust during the first year of operation, in such case can we conclude that because only one had success that there was an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of,opera over the last three decades in North America?
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, an [#permalink]
17 Jul 2023, 08:08
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions