February 20, 2019  February 20, 2019 08:00 PM EST 09:00 PM EST Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. Wednesday, February 20th at 8 PM EST February 21, 2019  February 21, 2019 10:00 PM PST 11:00 PM PST Kick off your 2019 GMAT prep with a free 7-day boot camp that includes free online lessons, webinars, and a full GMAT course access. Limited for the first 99 registrants! Feb. 21st until the 27th.
Author |
Message |
TAGS:
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 331
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
|
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 May 2016, 01:12
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: 4486
|
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor
[#permalink]
Show Tags
09 May 2016, 10:53
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
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Posts: 85
|
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Aug 2016, 14:35
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. Please someone help me understand.
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) Faulty argument #3: By answering your question, I caused you to ask the question. 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: 4486
|
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Oct 2016, 15:20
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 happenPart 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 ScoreYou 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
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2009
Posts: 64
|
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Feb 2019, 14:56
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. Please someone help me understand.
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) Faulty argument #3: By answering your question, I caused you to ask the question. 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  It makes perfect sense Mike. I too, chose D and after reading your AWESOME explanation understood why D is wrong. K+1. I wonder how come it is a low difficulty question despite the abstract language of the answer choices.
_________________
Retaking gmat for second time, any re-takers please feel free to connect.
|
|
|
|
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor
[#permalink]
02 Feb 2019, 14:56
|
|
|
Go to page
Previous
1 2
[ 25 posts ]
|
|
|
|