In recent years, a village outside Osaka, Japan has taken to hosting a

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.

This questions works on a simple rule

if P, then Q ==> ~Q --> ~P

For this condition ~P--> ~Q is always incorrect.

Here P is attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas and Q is Take the festival seriously.

A.Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. : This is restatement, hence can't be Assumption.

B.No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja. Correct as per above rule.

C.Anyone who is not dressed up as a ninja is not attending the festival. : Incorrect as per above rule.

D.The festival organizers have instituted a ninja-themed dress code. : Irrelevant.

E.If an attendee is not dressed as a ninja, then that attendee will not be taken seriously by other attendees. : Same as C.
_________________

Let's take a look at this question from a strategic point of view that highlights common patterns on the GMAT. Our first strategic item of business is to identify leverage in the question stem to identify the problem type. This question isn't subtle; after all, the question asks for an "assumption on which the argument depends." "Required Assumption" questions are a sub-type of traditional Strengthen questions, but for those of you studying for the GMAT, it might be worth noting that Required Assumption questions play by slightly different rules.

If a question asks you for an unstated fact (in other words, an "assumption") upon which an argument "depends", that is a pretty high bar. With regular Strengthen questions, any answer choice that helps the conclusion to be valid can strengthen the argument. However, when a problem asks for an assumption on which the argument "depends" or "relies", you are looking for an answer choice that is FUNDAMENTALLY CRITICAL to the viability of the conclusion.

In this argument, the conclusion is "clearly only children take this festival seriously." The word "clearly" is our trigger word that identifies this as a conclusion. Notice that conclusion contains the word "only" -- an extreme scope limiter that has a very high bar of proof.

Now that we have identified the conclusion, the gap in the logic should be fairly obvious: even though the "only" attendees in ninja costumes are children doesn't necessarily mean that "only" the children take the festival seriously. In my classes, I call this type of error "Correlation is not Causation." Just because just the children dress up doesn't mean that their costumes -- and and their costumes alone -- prove that they are the "only" serious fans. (Think about it: you don't have to dress as Darth Vader to prove you are a serious Star Wars fan any more than you have to carry around a block of cheddar to prove you like cheese!) Could there be other ways that a "serious" fan might show his/her colors? Who says that dressing up is the only way? What if their parents are the super-fans who subject their kids to embarrassing costumes? The kids themselves could still hate ninjas! Wearing a costume isn't necessarily the only proof that you love ninjas!

The argument requires a statement that shows that dressing up as a ninja is the "only" way to demonstrate that a fan is "serious." The correct answer choice will do this. Anything else is a trap.

Answer choice A is a beautiful trap answer. It states, "Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously." At first glance, this sounds really good. After all, this proves that the kids who dress up are serious fans. But this answer DOESN'T prove that the kids are the "only" serious fans. This strengthens the argument, since, after all, it shows that the kids aren't just being dressed up by their parents. But it fails to show that dressing up is the "only" sign of a serious fan. What if there are other ways that a fan can be identified? This answer falls short of being an assumption upon with the argument "depends."

Answer choice B is the right answer, but it is deliberately worded in an obnoxious way. (I call this deceptive technique "Convoluted Camouflage" in my classes.) Notice how B uses a double negative to intentionally hide what is really happening. ("No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja" could also be translated "All attendees who take the festival seriously would dress up as a ninja.") This fits the criteria we are looking for. Since this shows that dressing up as a ninjas is the "only" way to demonstrate that a fan is serious, we have our answer.

Answer choice C also uses a double negative to intentionally hide what is really happening. But in this case, answer choice C is overkill. The argument doesn't "depend" on the fact that only ninja-costumed fans attend the festival. Answer choice C also doesn't focus on the logical gap. It says nothing about whether dressing up is the "only" way to demonstrate that a fan is "serious." Get rid of it.

Likewise, answer choice D does nothing to address the logical gap. Whether a dress code exists might be interesting background information, but -- dress code or no dress code -- D is not a fact required by the argument. Get rid of this as well.

Answer choice E uses a subtle shift of wordplay to trap novice test takers. The original argument is trying to connect wearing ninjas costumes with being a "serious" attendee. However, being a "serious" attendee is not the same thing as being "taken seriously" by other attendees. The similar verbiage is a distracting trap, but in the end it still doesn't focus on the logical gap. E is also gone.

So, we have our answer. Only B truly answers the question, giving us a statement upon which the argument "depends."

Now, for those of you studying for the GMAT, here is a review of some of the major takeaways with this question: First, notice the difference in approach between Strengthen questions and Required Assumption questions. Of course, these two question types are related. Both question types require you to recognize the logical gap between the conclusion and the rest of the argument. But Required Assumption questions have a higher standard. One answer (A) could arguably strengthen the argument, but that is not sufficient. 3 of the 5 answer choices (C, D, and E) fail to focus on the logical gap presented in the question stem. In the end, there is only one answer upon which the argument "depends": answer choice "B". It's true meaning is hidden by some "Convoluted Camouflage", but that is a normal pattern of the GMAT. This problem is a great reminder for making sure you know exactly what the question is asking and not getting distracted by other things.

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..!!

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!

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.

Need help to clear ambiguity between option A and option. I am still not getting the point .

hi,
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.
look at the coloured portion.. this is the argument

it states that children are the only serious attendee because they dress up like ninjas....
A tells us 'A.Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.'.... if this is the assumption then the argument should have been But clearly children take this festival seriously, for they bother to dress up as ninjas....

however since the argument uses them as the only category that is serious, it means it is necessary to wear clothes as ninjas to be serious in program... or anyone not wearing the dress is not serious this is what B states
_________________

Hi sajib2126,


Negation technique is very helpful in solving 'assumption' type question.

Lets check option A first, and negate.

A. Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.

Negate A - Any attendee who doesn't dress up as a ninja doesn't take the festival seriously.

It's the other way round -

If X, then Y ----> doesn't mean If Y, then X

If you take festival seriously, then dress up as ninja
If dressed up as Ninja, then you may or may not take the festival seriously.


Lets check option B, and negate.

B.No attendee who takes the festival seriously would fail to dress up as a ninja.

Negate B - Attendee who takes the festival seriously would dress up as a Ninja.


That is what clearly mentioned in the argument.

Hope this is clear now.

Correct me if I am wrong

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.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Solution: B

Most Assumption questions feature a new element in the conclusion: an element not introduced in any of the premises. To strengthen the argument, find the answer choice that contains that element and connects it to the existing premises. In this case, the only relevant premise is “Children are the only attendees dressed as ninjas”, and the conclusion is “Children are the only attendees who take the event seriously.” This tells us that dressing as a ninja is a necessary condition for taking the event seriously: in other words, if you aren’t dressed as a ninja, you don’t take the event seriously. (B.) (Remember that this does NOT work the other way around: dressing as a ninja is not sufficient to prove that you take the event seriously – it is merely one thing you have to do to prove you take the event seriously – so (A) is NOT right.)

Some of the explanations here are ridiculously complicated.

The argument states: "Clearly only children take this festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas."

This actively assumes that dressing up as a Ninja is a requirement/ indicator for those who take this festival seriously.

Passively, we can make many assumptions required for this argument to hold, but here are a few:
- People who do not dress up as a ninja do not take the festival seriously (most inadvertent)
- People who don't walk around the festival holding a samurai sword are serious attendees

(A) and (B) Match these pre-thought assumptions closest.

More complicated reasoning why (A) is incorrect and (B) is right:
The argument uses conditional reasoning. "If A occurs then B will definitely occur" thus if B occurs it is sufficient to say A has occured.

Only Children take the festival seriously, for they are the only attendees who bother to dress up as ninjas
It is sufficient to say someone takes the festival seriously if they dress up as a ninja (necessary condition)

Here's a simpler example from powerscore:


(A) states: Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously. This reverses the necessary and sufficient conditions whereas (B) reinforces the Sufficient-necessary relationship above by denying the possibility of any other state. (B) No attendee who takes the festival seriously (sufficient) would fail to dress up as a ninja (necessary)

Less complicated reasoning why (A) is incorrect and (B) is right:
Try negating each answer:
(A) Not Any attendee who dresses up as a ninja takes the festival seriously.

So some who dress up as a ninja take the event seriously, some don't. The ambiguity of the number of attendees who could potentially take the events seriously but who fail to dress up as a ninja isn't clear.

(B) Someattendee(s) who take the festival seriously would not fail to dress up as a ninja.

Therefore its clear that if people were serious they would dress up as ninjas.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________