It is currently 23 Jun 2017, 10:30

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In recent years, a village outside Osaka

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 20 Sep 2012
Posts: 22
In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2013, 01:24
3
KUDOS
17
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:10) correct 44% (01:07) wrong based on 715 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 199
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: HBS '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2013, 04:17
Can you tell me the difference between A and B?
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 41
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT Date: 12-10-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2013, 09:40
it was easy to eliminate C, D and E. Choice between A and B.

But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

Argument has assumed that " to take this festival seriously , must be true condition is dress up as ninjas".

Or one who is taking this festival seriously , would be dressed up as a ninja.
that's what option B says..
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 26
Location: Poland
GPA: 3.8
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 20:24
skrishnakarthik wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees.

I would like to see some convincing explanation of the difference between a and b. Thanks.....
Intern
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 44
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2013, 03:44
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
- What abt people who doesnt dressup as ninjas, do they take it seriously too? They can be serious too..then the conclusion is wrong else right

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja
- Correct answer - all attendess who take function seriously will dress - up as ninja. As only children cam in dressup they only are serious about the festival

Hope it helps..!!
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 20
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2014, 23:01
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
skrishnakarthik wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees.

I feel this can be solved as a Sufficient/Necessary condition type of reasoning question.
The argument says you need to be dressed up as a Ninja to be taken seriously. This means dressing up like a ninja is a NECESSARY condition to be taken seriously and taken seriously is a sufficient condition.
Take festival seriously->Dressed as a Ninja
so valid answer should be either of the following:
1. Takes festival seriously -> Dressed up as ninja
2. Not Dressed up as a ninja -> Does Not takes festival seriously.

Only choice A and B are relevant here, of that choice B is same as 1 so is the correct answer.
Choice A means: Dressed up as ninja -> Takes festival seriously. which is incorrect as its not either 1 or 2 from above.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 127
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2014, 01:04
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").
Manager
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 141
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2014, 19:32
2
KUDOS
bb61 wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").

Hi bb61,
I think your explanation is good. However, I believe we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q"
Logic does not work as an equation in which if you negate both sides you get the same equation.

Consider this example. "If someone is German, then he is European".
This does not mean that "If someone is not German, then he is not European". (That someone could be Italian, and still be European)

Would like to hear your thoughts, bro, and those of the community as well.
Thanks!
_________________

Consider giving me Kudos if I helped, but don´t take them away if I didn´t!

What would you do if you weren´t afraid?

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2014
Posts: 95
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2014, 01:40
B it is.
I agree with minmoswoh that we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q".
_________________

Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.

Manager
Joined: 06 Jan 2014
Posts: 72
In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2014, 07:21
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
minwoswoh wrote:
bb61 wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").

Hi bb61,
I think your explanation is good. However, I believe we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q"
Logic does not work as an equation in which if you negate both sides you get the same equation.

Consider this example. "If someone is German, then he is European".
This does not mean that "If someone is not German, then he is not European". (That someone could be Italian, and still be European)

Would like to hear your thoughts, bro, and those of the community as well.
Thanks!

Hi

Case 1 : If P(takes festival seriously) is the sufficient condition for Q(dress up as Ninja) to Occur
Case 2 : And the Contrapositive will mean If Not Q(Not dress up as Ninja) --> then Not P((does not take festival seriously)

so in the question in hand , Case 1 is getting applied to Option B

As for your example, the contrapositive ll be

If someone is not European then he is not German

Hope it Makes Sense
_________________

______________________________
Liked the Post !!!! KUDOs Plzzzzz

Manager
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 141
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2014, 09:18
dream21 wrote:
minwoswoh wrote:
bb61 wrote:
In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a ninja festival, a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present. But clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.

to take the festival seriously -------> attendees must dress up as ninjas
p--->q
not P----> not q

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

in conditional situation the assumption question always support the necessary condition.

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. q---->p mistaken reversal
it is not necessary that whoever dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously but whoever takes the festival seriously must dress up as ninja

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. this means: if anyone is an attendees and takes the festival seriously then he/she won't fail to dress up as ninja (satisfy the necessary condition "must dress up as ninja").

Hi bb61,
I think your explanation is good. However, I believe we cannot always use the reasoning that equals "P --> Q" = "Not P --> Not Q"
Logic does not work as an equation in which if you negate both sides you get the same equation.

Consider this example. "If someone is German, then he is European".
This does not mean that "If someone is not German, then he is not European". (That someone could be Italian, and still be European)

Would like to hear your thoughts, bro, and those of the community as well.
Thanks!

Hi

Case 1 : If P(takes festival seriously) is the sufficient condition for Q(dress up as Ninja) to Occur
Case 2 : And the Contrapositive will mean If Not Q(Not dress up as Ninja) --> then Not P((does not take festival seriously)

so in the question in hand , Case 1 is getting applied to Option B

As for your example, the contrapositive ll be

If someone is not European then he is not German

Hope it Makes Sense

Hi dream21,
It makes sense to me. So let me retype your reasoning.

P --> Q (Given)
Not P --> Not Q (INCORRECT)
Not Q --> Not P (CORRECT)

If Daniel is German, then he is European. (Given)
If Daniel is not German, then he is not European (INCORRECT)
If Daniel is not European, then he is not German (CORRECT)

Is this template correct at all times?
And ultimately, have you seen a significant number of Gmat questions based on this or we are just getting out of scope with formal logic?

Thanks!
_________________

Consider giving me Kudos if I helped, but don´t take them away if I didn´t!

What would you do if you weren´t afraid?

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2014
Posts: 95
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2014, 11:46
5
KUDOS
minwoswoh wrote:

Hi dream21,
It makes sense to me. So let me retype your reasoning.

P --> Q (Given)
Not P --> Not Q (INCORRECT)
Not Q --> Not P (CORRECT)

If Daniel is German, then he is European. (Given)
If Daniel is not German, then he is not European (INCORRECT)
If Daniel is not European, then he is not German (CORRECT)

Is this template correct at all times?
And ultimately, have you seen a significant number of Gmat questions based on this or we are just getting out of scope with formal logic?

Thanks!

If All P -> Q (given), Then what you have written is correct.I am not sure how to create a venn diagram in post as it will be easier to explain.

I will try to explain in text.
Imagine two circles as P and Q.
P is area inside P and Q is area inside Q
Not P is area outside circle P and Not Q is are ...Q

If All P -> Q , then P must lie inside Q i.e circle P is inside Q.

Condition 1 : Not Q --> Not P.
Not q means an area outside q.
If An area is out side Q , then it must be outside P also.Because P is inside q.So, The statement is always TRUE.

Condition 2: Not P --> Not Q.
Not P means area outside P.
As P is inside Q, Outside of area P could be region in Q or area out side Q also.So it can be Q or NOT Q both.So, This statement is not true.
_________________

Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.

Manager
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 141
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2014, 12:28
VarunBhardwaj wrote:
minwoswoh wrote:

Hi dream21,
It makes sense to me. So let me retype your reasoning.

P --> Q (Given)
Not P --> Not Q (INCORRECT)
Not Q --> Not P (CORRECT)

If Daniel is German, then he is European. (Given)
If Daniel is not German, then he is not European (INCORRECT)
If Daniel is not European, then he is not German (CORRECT)

Is this template correct at all times?
And ultimately, have you seen a significant number of Gmat questions based on this or we are just getting out of scope with formal logic?

Thanks!

If All P -> Q (given), Then what you have written is correct.I am not sure how to create a venn diagram in post as it will be easier to explain.

I will try to explain in text.
Imagine two circles as P and Q.
P is area inside P and Q is area inside Q
Not P is area outside circle P and Not Q is are ...Q

If All P -> Q , then P must lie inside Q i.e circle P is inside Q.

Condition 1 : Not Q --> Not P.
Not q means an area outside q.
If An area is out side Q , then it must be outside P also.Because P is inside q.So, The statement is always TRUE.

Condition 2: Not P --> Not Q.
Not P means area outside P.
As P is inside Q, Outside of area P could be region in Q or area out side Q also.So it can be Q or NOT Q both.So, This statement is not true.

Makes sense to me, Varun.

+1 Kudos for you for taking the time to evaluate my reasoning and write this explanation.

Thanks
_________________

Consider giving me Kudos if I helped, but don´t take them away if I didn´t!

What would you do if you weren´t afraid?

Manager
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 121
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 12:56
pqhai , can you please solve this question the POWERSCORE way? I am an absolute fan of your way of solving CR questions. Please enlighten!
Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 111
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2015, 09:27
a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.
- What abt people who doesnt dressup as ninjas, do they take it seriously too? They can be serious too..then the conclusion is wrong else right

b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja
- Correct answer - all attendess who take function seriously will dress - up as ninja. As only children cam in dressup they only are serious about the festival

Hope it helps..!!

But Doesnt B Sound extreme? Coz i have seen few examples where explanation says 'Avoid answers which refer to All/Every One etc'
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 60
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2015, 09:14
Well this is what i understood.It is not mentioned that all children take the festival seriously. So some children can dress up and take it not seriously.in that case assumption A becomes invalid.
Manager
Status: single
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Posts: 95
Location: India
GPA: 3.2
WE: Sales (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2015, 21:06
In CR
any refers to some or some not.
from 1st statement
some people taken ninja festival seriously and some people doesnt.
In premise it clearly mention, only children taken ninja festival seriously.

option B mentions, clearly a condition no one who take festival serioulsy fail to dress up

so option B wins.
VP
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1205
Location: India
In recent years, a village outside Osaka [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2016, 11:54
Points in argument
• In recent years, a village outside Osaka has taken to hosting a ninja festival,
• Osaka is in Japan.
• ninja festival is a celebration of Japan’s heritage that reflects on its feudal past while exalting its pop culture driven present.
• Since only children are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas.
Assn1: only people who dress up as ninjas can attend
Assn2: Only children bother to dress up as ninjas
Assn3: Those who attend take festival seriously
• only children take this festival seriously................conclusion

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

a) Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously...........you cannot attend the a club just because you wore its dress code. You need to have its membership as well.
b) No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.................one who attended the club have dressed as per the code since it is mandatory.
C) Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival..........a bit similar to option A. We don't need to assume that those who don't dress up do not attend as it can refer to anyone.
d) The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code..............even though there is no theme dress code it is possible that makers prefer ninja dress code for participants just for fun or tradition.
E) If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees............seriousness among fellow attendees is out of scope and not our concern.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

In recent years, a village outside Osaka   [#permalink] 22 Mar 2016, 11:54
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 In recent years, the Holdsville Transportation Authority 6 07 Feb 2017, 01:59
9 We have heard a good deal in recent years about the 8 16 Jun 2016, 18:38
4 In recent years the climate has been generally cool in 14 16 Sep 2016, 01:03
20 In recent years many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim 16 10 May 2017, 19:48
1 We have heard a good deal in recent years about the 5 10 Feb 2017, 03:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by