Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 00:50

### 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 virtually any industry, technological improvements

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 137

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2012, 21:55
mikemcgarry wrote:
betterscore wrote:
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this.

Of course, this is OG13, CR #8, a new question that did not appear in the OG12. Let's look at this prompt.

GENERAL RULE: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked.
FACT/EVIDENCE: In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries.
CONCLUSION: Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

We are told that technological improvements cause increases in labor productivity --- to use the language of formal logic, we know that technological improvements are sufficient for an increase in labor productivity. This is quite different from saying that: technological improvements are necessary for an increase in labor productivity. In other words, the argument is implicitly assuming that absolutely nothing else ---- labor conditions, local economic conditions, difference in shipping cost for materials or sale, etc. etc. --- would affect labor productivity. That's crazy. All kinds of other things also could affect labor productivity. Technological improvements are sufficient but not necessary for an increase in labor productivity.
Parland has higher labor productivity than does Vergia. One possible explanation could be a technological superiority, but again, there are a dozen other things that might differ between the two regions and might account for the difference in labor productivity.
The answer that best summarizes this flaw is (C) --- assuming that one particular cause is the only possible cause, or in other words, assuming that a sufficient cause is thereby also a necessary cause.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike

Mike,
I am not sure what is wrong with answer choice D.

Does it say that the effect ( Technological advancement) causes the cause (Labor Productivity) ?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4032
Followers: 1415

Kudos [?]: 6756 [1] , given: 84

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2012, 10:40
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
monsoon1 wrote:
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Mike,
I am not sure what is wrong with answer choice D.

Does it say that the effect (Technological advancement) causes the cause (Labor Productivity) ?

The argument is saying that:
CAUSE = technological improvements
EFFECT = increased labor productivity

Choice (D) does not reverse or change the order of fundamental causal relation. What choice (D) does is to introduce time. Choice (D) says:
It takes a condition (= increased labor productivity) to be the effect of something (= technological improvements) that happened only after the condition already existed

First of all, the argument gives absolute no information about time relationships, about what is before what. Furthermore, if technological improvements really are causing increased labor productivity. it simply makes no sense that labor productivity would have increased before any technological improvements. For these reasons, (D) is an unacceptable answer.

Does this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4032
Followers: 1415

Kudos [?]: 6756 [0], given: 84

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2013, 11:17
If any of the users of this thread are interested in more practice, here's a set of GMAT CR practice questions recently released:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... questions/
Enjoy!
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10372
Followers: 997

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 0

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2014, 19:03
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 348
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 403

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 07:25
betterscore wrote:
In virtually any industry, technological improvements
increase labor productivity, which is the output of
goods and services per person-hour worked. In
Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly
higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly,
therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be
further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the
following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a
paraphrase of one of the pieces of information
provided in its support.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim
information that is inconsistent with other
evidence presented in support of the same claim.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be
the actual cause of that condition without
considering any other possible causes.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of
something that happened only after the

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the
truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

Please explain option D ? It seems so convoluted to me ..
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4032
Followers: 1415

Kudos [?]: 6756 [0], given: 84

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 11:15
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
samichange wrote:
Please explain option D? It seems so convoluted to me ..

Dear samichange,

I'm happy to respond.

Here's the prompt with choice (D).
8) In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Yes, this is a bit hard to decipher. Many times, the incorrect answer choices on the CR Argument Structure question have this flavor: they are speaking at a very abstract level.

A condition is just some set of circumstances we find in the real world. It's anything that's factual. For example,
"In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries."

To take a condition to be the effect of something ---- suppose I take the condition of a drought in California to be the effect of global climate change. Then I am saying global climate change is a CAUSE, and the drought in California is an EFFECT. To take a condition P to be the effect of Q: that is equivalent to the interpretation that Q caused P, that Q is the CAUSE and P is the EFFECT.

Now, my argument that "Q cause P" is going to run into trouble if it turns out that P was going on before Q ever existed. For example, suppose we have the following exchange:
Person A: "The price of tomatoes is very high. This must be due to the documentary last summer on the health benefits of lycopene, found in tomatoes."
Person B: "The price of tomatoes was high well before last summer."

Person B makes a devastating objection to Person A's argument.
Person A takes a condition (the high price of tomatoes) to be the effect of something (the documentary) that happened only after the condition (the high price of tomatoes) already existed. In other words, tomato prices were already before the documentary aired, so the documentary cannot possibly be the sole cause of the high price of the tomatoes.

For more practice with these question, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-di ... questions/

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 348
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 403

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 11:32
mikemcgarry wrote:
samichange wrote:
Please explain option D? It seems so convoluted to me ..

Dear samichange,

I'm happy to respond.

Here's the prompt with choice (D).
8) In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Yes, this is a bit hard to decipher. Many times, the incorrect answer choices on the CR Argument Structure question have this flavor: they are speaking at a very abstract level.

A condition is just some set of circumstances we find in the real world. It's anything that's factual. For example,
"In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries."

To take a condition to be the effect of something ---- suppose I take the condition of a drought in California to be the effect of global climate change. Then I am saying global climate change is a CAUSE, and the drought in California is an EFFECT. To take a condition P to be the effect of Q: that is equivalent to the interpretation that Q caused P, that Q is the CAUSE and P is the EFFECT.

Now, my argument that "Q cause P" is going to run into trouble if it turns out that P was going on before Q ever existed. For example, suppose we have the following exchange:
Person A: "The price of tomatoes is very high. This must be due to the documentary last summer on the health benefits of lycopene, found in tomatoes."
Person B: "The price of tomatoes was high well before last summer."

Person B makes a devastating objection to Person A's argument.
Person A takes a condition (the high price of tomatoes) to be the effect of something (the documentary) that happened only after the condition (the high price of tomatoes) already existed. In other words, tomato prices were already before the documentary aired, so the documentary cannot possibly be the sole cause of the high price of the tomatoes.

For more practice with these question, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-di ... questions/

Does all this make sense?

Mike

Many thanks Mike for such an elaborate explanation.

Your explanation contains all that I was looking for.
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Posts: 167
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-10-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 48

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2015, 09:48
It is clear from the argument that while making conclusion statement, author assumes that there could be no other explanation for the higher productivity.
_________________

Please give Kudos to the post if you liked.

Affiliations: Oracle certified java programmer , adobe certified developer
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 124
GMAT Date: 02-12-2015
GPA: 3.87
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 37

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2015, 03:13
betterscore wrote:
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

This is CR #8 in the OG13.

C it is because it presupposed a particular assumption and thought it is the reason for increase in Parland's industries .
He should have thought of other options.
Hence most vulnerable.
_________________

IF IT IS TO BE , IT IS UP TO ME

Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Posts: 11
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 10

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2015, 21:08
technological improvements(sufficient condition) -> increases in labor productivity( necessary condition)

Conclusion of the argument is a mistaken reversal for conditional reasoning

Conclusion: Parland's industries' has higher labor productivity than Vergia ->Hence Parland industries are technologically more advanced.

C is the only one that states the argument confuses sufficient condition for necessary condition( another way to state that the flaw is a mistaken reversal)
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3650
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1681

Kudos [?]: 13497 [0], given: 1905

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2015, 21:01
More technology = more productivity

Productivity in Parland > productivity in Vergia

Technology in Parland > technology in Vergia

A--No; the conclusion is the combination of the two premises, not simply a restatement of one of them.

B--I do not see any inconsistencies in the evidence.

C--correct; it is entirely possible that other factors have led to Parland being more productive. Better resources, more education, etc.

D--we don't really have information about timing here.

E--nope, no circular reasoning going on here.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2015, 02:40
Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?

And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.

thanks
Andy
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4032
Followers: 1415

Kudos [?]: 6756 [1] , given: 84

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2015, 14:26
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
andy2whang wrote:
Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?

And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.

thanks
Andy

Dear Andy,
I'm happy to help. Yes, this is a tricky official question.

Here's the text of the question again.
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

First, let's think about the nature of the objection that (D) holds. Here are a series of extremely bad arguments.
Faulty argument #1: The Dred Scott decision (1857) was a direct response to the election of Abraham Lincoln (1860).
Faulty argument #2: The election of Ronald Reagan (1980) was a direct result of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
All three of these are disastrous bad arguments, and all three make the same mistake. All three of these would be vulnerable to the objection that (D) makes. In order for X to cause Y, X must come earlier in time than Y. A cause may come immediately before an effect, or there may be a gap of minutes, hours, days, or even millions of years.
Striking a match immediately causes the match to burst into flame.
Not remembering to put gas in one's car will cause the car, a few hours or few days later, to run out of gas.
A habit of cigarette smoking, started in one's teen years, cause either cancer or heart disease over the course of decades.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution (1789) causes American citizens today to have the gun rights they have.
The separation of N & S America from Europe & Africa, 175 million years ago, cause Columbus & the 16th century explorers to find very different animals & plants in the New World and the Old World.

The cause could happen any time before the effect, but it absolutely can't happen after the effect.

That's what (D) says.
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
In other words, the argument is interpreting a certain condition to be the effect of a particular cause, but this reputed cause took place after the condition, the supposed effect, was already happening. It's a very powerful objection to a cause-effect argument if we can demonstrate that the reputed cause took place after the effect.

Why is (D) not the OA? Well, we get no information about when any of these things happened. Time isn't discussed at all. We know Parland's industries have higher labor productivity ---that's the effect the argument is trying to explain. We have no evidence about when in time Parland started using advanced technology, or whether they use it at all. (D) would be a very power objection if a time sequence were explicitly present in the argument, but it is not.

OK, let's go back to the argument.
Parland has a higher level of labor productivity than does Vergia. This difference is what we want to explain. Why does Parland have higher labor productivity?

The argument tells us that one way to increase labor productivity is to use advanced technology. Is this the absolutely only way on earth to increase labor productivity? Absolutely not! In some cases better educated or better trained workers might be more productive, or better equipment or better supplies or better materials might help. There are many things that can contribute to labor productivity, and advanced technology is one of them.

We want to explain why Parland has higher labor productivity. It could be because Parland has more advanced technology. That could be the cause, but it doesn't have to be. The argument fallaciously assumes that advanced technology must be the cause, the only cause, of Parland's higher labor productivity.

This is another very powerful objection. If I say, "Here's a case of B. Since A causes B, A must have caused this instance of B," then a very powerful objection would be simply to point out that B has other causes besides A. Yes, we all see an instance of B, but was it caused by A or C or D? We don't know, and we can't automatically assume the one cause was responsible and not the others.

This is exactly what (C) says:
It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Part of what is hard about this is the abstract wording. Part of what is challenging, though, is that you have to have a good intuitive sense about how the business world works. Presumably you are taking the GMAT so that you can get into business school. Well, if a candidate applies to business school and then, on the interview, doesn't give any evidence of understanding how the business world works, that's not going to look good. It's very important to build your understanding of how the business world works---what factors might influence labor productivity, for example. See this blog article:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 370
Location: India
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 17

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2016, 02:12
Confused between C and D
C states cause
D states effect
Why is D wrong?

Posted from my mobile device
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4032
Followers: 1415

Kudos [?]: 6756 [0], given: 84

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2016, 11:53
paidlukkha wrote:
Confused between C and D
C states cause
D states effect
Why is D wrong?

Dear paidlukkha,

I'm happy to respond. My friend, I am not sure if you realize that this very question is already discussed on this thread. For example, user monsoon1 asked this in his post of November 3, 2012, and in the very next post, on November 5, 2012, I responded. I suggest reading this part of the thread, and if you have question about what I've said, or if anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to ask.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2016
Posts: 239
Location: Viet Nam
Schools: Booth '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q60 V60
GPA: 4
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 5

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2016, 06:44
Typical A causes B --> B implies A error in reasoning. Answer choice C.
_________________

Offering top quality online and offline GMAT tutoring service in Vietnam, Southeast Asia, and worldwide.

\$50/hour as of February 2017.

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Posts: 92
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 80

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2016, 15:35
mikemcgarry wrote:
andy2whang wrote:
Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?

And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.

thanks
Andy

Dear Andy,
I'm happy to help. Yes, this is a tricky official question.

Here's the text of the question again.
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

First, let's think about the nature of the objection that (D) holds. Here are a series of extremely bad arguments.
Faulty argument #1: The Dred Scott decision (1857) was a direct response to the election of Abraham Lincoln (1860).
Faulty argument #2: The election of Ronald Reagan (1980) was a direct result of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
All three of these are disastrous bad arguments, and all three make the same mistake. All three of these would be vulnerable to the objection that (D) makes. In order for X to cause Y, X must come earlier in time than Y. A cause may come immediately before an effect, or there may be a gap of minutes, hours, days, or even millions of years.
Striking a match immediately causes the match to burst into flame.
Not remembering to put gas in one's car will cause the car, a few hours or few days later, to run out of gas.
A habit of cigarette smoking, started in one's teen years, cause either cancer or heart disease over the course of decades.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution (1789) causes American citizens today to have the gun rights they have.
The separation of N & S America from Europe & Africa, 175 million years ago, cause Columbus & the 16th century explorers to find very different animals & plants in the New World and the Old World.

The cause could happen any time before the effect, but it absolutely can't happen after the effect.

That's what (D) says.
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
In other words, the argument is interpreting a certain condition to be the effect of a particular cause, but this reputed cause took place after the condition, the supposed effect, was already happening. It's a very powerful objection to a cause-effect argument if we can demonstrate that the reputed cause took place after the effect.

Why is (D) not the OA? Well, we get no information about when any of these things happened. Time isn't discussed at all. We know Parland's industries have higher labor productivity ---that's the effect the argument is trying to explain. We have no evidence about when in time Parland started using advanced technology, or whether they use it at all. (D) would be a very power objection if a time sequence were explicitly present in the argument, but it is not.

OK, let's go back to the argument.
Parland has a higher level of labor productivity than does Vergia. This difference is what we want to explain. Why does Parland have higher labor productivity?

The argument tells us that one way to increase labor productivity is to use advanced technology. Is this the absolutely only way on earth to increase labor productivity? Absolutely not! In some cases better educated or better trained workers might be more productive, or better equipment or better supplies or better materials might help. There are many things that can contribute to labor productivity, and advanced technology is one of them.

We want to explain why Parland has higher labor productivity. It could be because Parland has more advanced technology. That could be the cause, but it doesn't have to be. The argument fallaciously assumes that advanced technology must be the cause, the only cause, of Parland's higher labor productivity.

This is another very powerful objection. If I say, "Here's a case of B. Since A causes B, A must have caused this instance of B," then a very powerful objection would be simply to point out that B has other causes besides A. Yes, we all see an instance of B, but was it caused by A or C or D? We don't know, and we can't automatically assume the one cause was responsible and not the others.

This is exactly what (C) says:
It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Part of what is hard about this is the abstract wording. Part of what is challenging, though, is that you have to have a good intuitive sense about how the business world works. Presumably you are taking the GMAT so that you can get into business school. Well, if a candidate applies to business school and then, on the interview, doesn't give any evidence of understanding how the business world works, that's not going to look good. It's very important to build your understanding of how the business world works---what factors might influence labor productivity, for example. See this blog article:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Wow, Mr. Garry, I wish I can give you 10 Kudos for the explanation. I have saved this link.
Here is my Interpretation based on the explanation given by You for refusing Option D.

X causes Y

X = Technological Improvement
Y = Labor Productivity Increases
X→ Y

PRETHINKING: Argument assumes that Only X can Cause Y.
If somehow we can challenge this assumption then we can weaken the conclusion. This can be done If -

We can prove that there is some other reason say A that causes Y
A CAUSES Y = A → Y

But here option D says Y(Effect, which is given the name of Condition here) existed before the Causes (X). At a very fundamental level, it is actually spoiling the Cause and Effect Definition by stating that Effect occurred before the Cause. Technically it breaks the Flow or causality that Technological Improvement Caused Improved Productivity, but at the same time it destroys the basic definition of Cause and Effect, and thus this is a bad argument.

Analogy: In Sentence Correction Questions sometimes many options are correct grammatically, but they destroy the logic and meaning.
_________________

Richa Champion | My GMAT Journey - 470 720 740

Target 760+

Not Improving after Multiple attempts. I can guide You.
Contact me richacrunch2@gmail.com

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4032
Followers: 1415

Kudos [?]: 6756 [1] , given: 84

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2016, 16:20
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
betterscore wrote:
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

This is CR #8 in the OG13.

[
Dear Nevernevergiveup,

My friend, part of what is going on is that you have to learn the vocabulary of logic. For example, the word "presuppose" has a very precise and sophisticated meaning. You will not understand that word by substituting one or two other words. You have to have the full and precise meaning of that word. You have to learn it and own it, so that when you see in a sentence such as this, it already makes sense.

What I have said of this one word is true of many of the logical terms in the answer choices. There is absolutely no substitute for knowing exactly what each word means. This problem provides a great start: you should make it your goal to learn the precise definition of each word that appears in these answer choices.

Knowing the vocab is step one. Once you know exactly what each word means, we can begin to put together the whole sentence.

For example, in (E), probably the hardest word is "presuppose." Here's the simple definition from Merriam-Webster:
to be based on the idea that something is true or will happen

Part of what might be confusing is the grammar also. The structure "the conclusion to be established" exhibits a particular idiomatic structure. The idiom "the [noun] to be [verb + ed]" is a structure that implies intention or necessary action. Describing a job as "the task to be done," implies that someone, probably someone in authority, wants this task done. In a math problem, we might talk about "the value to be found," that is, the value for which the question is asking. In this CR problem, there's a conclusion that someone is trying to establish, so this is "the conclusion to be established."

Choice (E) objects that the argument "makes a distinction," specifies a difference between two things at the beginning of the argument, and this distinction or difference "presupposes" or is logically dependent on "the truth of the conclusion that is to be established."

You see, the way an argument words, the premises are supposed to prove or provide support to the conclusion. If the premises presuppose the conclusion, that is a HUGE problem for the argument! If the premises need support from the conclusion, and the conclusion needs support from the premise, it sounds as if there's nothing reliable at all!

My friend, you need to read. You need to take up a practice of reading, reading hard logical analyses in English. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score
You need to keep up a habit of reading until choices such as this seem easy.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2015
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 102

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2016, 20:14
Option c summarises everything which weakens the argument.

Sent from my SM-J700F using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements   [#permalink] 10 Oct 2016, 20:14

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 39 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Top Line Technologies and Eureka Industries distribute the 6 13 Feb 2017, 16:57
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs 0 10 Jul 2013, 05:00
2 Technological improvements have made electric cars 21 10 Jul 2012, 06:08
Over the last five years, technological improvements have 34 16 May 2016, 21:01
156 Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 58 01 May 2017, 01:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by