Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:21 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:21
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

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

Track
Your Progress

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

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
serbiano
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Last visit: 27 Mar 2013
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
429
 [101]
Given Kudos: 2
Concentration: MBA
Posts: 46
Kudos: 429
 [101]
15
Kudos
Add Kudos
86
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
serbiano
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Last visit: 27 Mar 2013
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
429
 [105]
Given Kudos: 2
Concentration: MBA
Posts: 46
Kudos: 429
 [105]
81
Kudos
Add Kudos
24
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
avatar
rachowdh
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Last visit: 22 Jan 2010
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
3
 [2]
Posts: 3
Kudos: 3
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
BMindful
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Last visit: 08 Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
68
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 24
Kudos: 68
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
serbiano
Jane: Professor Harper’s ideas for modifying the design of guitars are of no
value because there is no general agreement among musicians as to what a
guitar should sound like and, consequently, no widely accepted basis for
evaluating the merits of a guitar’s sound.
Mark: What’s more, Harper’s ideas have had enough time to be adopted if
they really resulted in superior sound. It took only ten years for the Torres
design for guitars to be almost universally adopted because of the
improvement it makes in tonal quality. Which one of the following most
accurately describes the relationship between Jane’s argument and Mark’s
argument?

A Mark’s argument shows how a weakness in Jane’s argument can be
overcome.

B Mark’s argument has a premise in common with Jane’s argument.

C Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.

D Mark’s argument restates Jane’s argument in other terms.

E Mark’s argument and Jane’s argument are based on conflicting suppositions.

ANY TAKERS?

My ans is E
Jane: harper's has no value since no widely accepted basis for evaluating the merits of a guitar’s sound.
Mark: it can have value, if time and superior sound.
So Jane and Mark base their conclusions on different suppositions.
avatar
KanupriyaS
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Last visit: 28 Dec 2013
Posts: 45
Own Kudos:
32
 [2]
Given Kudos: 43
Concentration: Human Resources, International Business
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GPA: 3
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
Posts: 45
Kudos: 32
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
it took me 3 minutes to figure this one out.

A Mark’s argument shows how a weakness in Jane’s argument can be
overcome. Incorrect. He is giving his own understanding and observation about modifying guitar, not anything to what Jane says.

B Mark’s argument has a premise in common with Jane’s argument. Incorrect. They both agree to the same conclusion ( Harper's ideas for modifying guitars is not good) but not based on the same premise.

C Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions. Incorrect. They have the same conclusion.

D Mark’s argument restates Jane’s argument in other terms. Incorrect. They have the same conclusion but not the same premise. Although this looks like a very attractive choice

E Mark’s argument and Jane’s argument are based on conflicting suppositions.Correct. Jane believes that there is no way to evaluate the merit of a guitar sound but Mark believes that it can be done. (....It took only ten years for the Torres design for guitars to be almost universally adopted because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality....)
User avatar
anairamitch1804
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Last visit: 20 Apr 2019
Posts: 506
Own Kudos:
3,564
 [2]
Given Kudos: 877
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE:Education (Education)
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
Posts: 506
Kudos: 3,564
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
J : H's modification ideas for the guitars have no value since there is no general criterion for determining the merit of a guitar's sound (musicians dont agree about it )

M: Additionally, H's ideas would have been adopted by now if they were a real improvement, since it took only 10 years for the T design to be universally adopted because of its improved tone.

What is the relationship between J and M's arguments?


A. This is actually a different reason and is not necessarily a weakness of Jane's argument. It only presents a new reason for why H's ideas are of no value.

B. Well the premise is actually not the same. J's premise is that "There is no general criterion for determining the merit of a guitar's sound" to reach the conclusion that "H's modifications have no value." M's premise is that "Torres took only 10 years to be adopted for the improved tone." to reach the conclusion that "H's modifications can't have value because if they did they would have been adopted". These are actually conflicting ideas, since M actually believes that Torres managed to create a universally acceptable design idea, which opposes Jane's claim that this cannot be achieved due to disagreement.

C. The conclusion is the same.

D. It's not the same argument, as we proved in B.

E. This is exactly the conclusion we arrived at from B. M and J rely on conflicting suppositions, i.e. opposite ideas.

Pick E.
User avatar
SonalSinha803
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Last visit: 18 Feb 2019
Posts: 306
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 306
Kudos: 319
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Mark’s argument shows ((how a weakness in Jane’s argument can be overcome.)) - nope.

B. Mark’s argument has a ((premise in common)) with Jane’s argument. - not at all.

C. Mark and Jane ((use similar techniques)) to argue for different conclusions. - nope.

D. Mark’s argument ((restates)) Jane’s argument in other terms. - not at all.

E. Mark’s argument and Jane’s argument are based on //conflicting suppositions.// - yes. This is true. Jane says that is no common notion of how a guitar should sound. However, Mark states the example of torres' and how it was accepted because of its final quality over a period of time.

Thus, E is best.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
User avatar
believerinthy
Joined: 30 Nov 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2023
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 77
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Products:
Posts: 29
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
serbiano
OA is E.

This is one of the greatest Method of Reasoning questions of all time. First take a close look at the statements made by Jane and Mark. In the majority of GMAT questions with two speakers—one identifiably male and the other identifiably female—the male makes a mistake or an error of reasoning and the female uses sound reasoning. This does not occur in every problem, but it occurs enough to be more than random. Why? The thinking goes that in order for GMAC to protect themselves against accusations that they are biased against women, they create problems where the male is clearly the one using faulty reasoning. Jane’s position: Jane concludes that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless because there is no way to evaluate a guitar sound and determine what constitutes a better-sounding guitar. Mark’s position: Mark also agrees that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless, but Mark’s reasoning is that if Harper’s ideas really worked, then they would have been adopted by now. In making this analysis, Mark reveals that he believes there is a way to determine that one guitar sounds better than another. Like all GMAT questions, you must lock down the exact nature of the premises and conclusions! Mark’s initial comment of “What’s more” leads most people to believe he is in complete agreement with Jane. Yes, he agrees with her conclusion, but his reason for doing so is completely contrary to Jane’s reason. Mark actually misinterprets Jane’s claim, and this is why he says “What’s more,” as if he is adding an additional piece of information that supports her position. He is not; the premise that he uses contradicts Jane’s premises. If you simply accept “What’s more” to mean that he is in complete agreement with Jane, you will most certainly miss the question, and have no idea you have done so. The problem becomes even more challenging because the answer choices are brilliantly constructed:

Answer choice (A): Mark does not address a weakness in Jane’s argument or show how one could be overcome. Do not mistake the use of “What’s more” to automatically mean that he is adding something helpful to the situation.

Answer choice (B): This is an answer chosen by many people, and it has Shell game aspects. Mark’s argument does not have a premise in common with Jane’s argument; rather, Mark’s argument has the conclusion in common with Jane’s argument. Before you select this answer, use the Fact Test and ask yourself, “Which premise do the two arguments have in common?” You won’t be able to find one, and that would instantly disprove the answer.

Answer choice (C): This is a very clever Reverse Answer choice. The answer states: “Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.” In fact, the following happens in the stimulus: “Mark and Jane use different techniques to argue for similar conclusions.” If you had any doubt that the makers of the GMAT put the same amount of work into the wrong answers as the correct answers, this answer choice should be convince you that they do.

Answer choice (D): An argument is the sum of the premises and conclusion. Although Mark restates Jane’s conclusion, he does not restate her premises. Therefore, he does not restate her argument and this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed in the argument analysis, Jane believes that there is no way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sounds. On the opposite side, Mark’s response indicates he believes that there is a way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sound (“because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality”) and thus the two have conflicting positions. This is another great example of a separator question: one that scorers in a certain range will get and scorers in a lower range will not get.

This is also a dangerous question because many people think they have chosen the correct answer when in fact they have missed it. The lesson here is that you must be an active, prepared reader. Do not allow yourself to be lured by Mark’s comment of “What’s more” into believing that he automatically is in agreement with Jane. The test makers use that phrase to see if you will read closely enough to discern his real argument or if you will simply gloss over his comments on the basis of how they are introduced. The GMAT always makes you pay if you gloss over any section of a stimulus.




I completely agree with you on this but the word supposition indicates that Mark has no basis for his theory of conclusion but he does?
Can you shed some light over the same.

Thankyou.
User avatar
richirish
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 09 Feb 2021
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 127
Kudos: 60
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
believerinthy
serbiano
OA is E.

This is one of the greatest Method of Reasoning questions of all time. First take a close look at the statements made by Jane and Mark. In the majority of GMAT questions with two speakers—one identifiably male and the other identifiably female—the male makes a mistake or an error of reasoning and the female uses sound reasoning. This does not occur in every problem, but it occurs enough to be more than random. Why? The thinking goes that in order for GMAC to protect themselves against accusations that they are biased against women, they create problems where the male is clearly the one using faulty reasoning. Jane’s position: Jane concludes that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless because there is no way to evaluate a guitar sound and determine what constitutes a better-sounding guitar. Mark’s position: Mark also agrees that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless, but Mark’s reasoning is that if Harper’s ideas really worked, then they would have been adopted by now. In making this analysis, Mark reveals that he believes there is a way to determine that one guitar sounds better than another. Like all GMAT questions, you must lock down the exact nature of the premises and conclusions! Mark’s initial comment of “What’s more” leads most people to believe he is in complete agreement with Jane. Yes, he agrees with her conclusion, but his reason for doing so is completely contrary to Jane’s reason. Mark actually misinterprets Jane’s claim, and this is why he says “What’s more,” as if he is adding an additional piece of information that supports her position. He is not; the premise that he uses contradicts Jane’s premises. If you simply accept “What’s more” to mean that he is in complete agreement with Jane, you will most certainly miss the question, and have no idea you have done so. The problem becomes even more challenging because the answer choices are brilliantly constructed:

Answer choice (A): Mark does not address a weakness in Jane’s argument or show how one could be overcome. Do not mistake the use of “What’s more” to automatically mean that he is adding something helpful to the situation.

Answer choice (B): This is an answer chosen by many people, and it has Shell game aspects. Mark’s argument does not have a premise in common with Jane’s argument; rather, Mark’s argument has the conclusion in common with Jane’s argument. Before you select this answer, use the Fact Test and ask yourself, “Which premise do the two arguments have in common?” You won’t be able to find one, and that would instantly disprove the answer.

Answer choice (C): This is a very clever Reverse Answer choice. The answer states: “Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.” In fact, the following happens in the stimulus: “Mark and Jane use different techniques to argue for similar conclusions.” If you had any doubt that the makers of the GMAT put the same amount of work into the wrong answers as the correct answers, this answer choice should be convince you that they do.

Answer choice (D): An argument is the sum of the premises and conclusion. Although Mark restates Jane’s conclusion, he does not restate her premises. Therefore, he does not restate her argument and this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed in the argument analysis, Jane believes that there is no way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sounds. On the opposite side, Mark’s response indicates he believes that there is a way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sound (“because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality”) and thus the two have conflicting positions. This is another great example of a separator question: one that scorers in a certain range will get and scorers in a lower range will not get.

This is also a dangerous question because many people think they have chosen the correct answer when in fact they have missed it. The lesson here is that you must be an active, prepared reader. Do not allow yourself to be lured by Mark’s comment of “What’s more” into believing that he automatically is in agreement with Jane. The test makers use that phrase to see if you will read closely enough to discern his real argument or if you will simply gloss over his comments on the basis of how they are introduced. The GMAT always makes you pay if you gloss over any section of a stimulus.




I completely agree with you on this but the word supposition indicates that Mark has no basis for his theory of conclusion but he does?
Can you shed some light over the same.

Thankyou.

It took me about a minute to solve so let me try and offer a simpler explanation.

Jane fundamentally believes that there is no way to discern an improvement in sound quality as there is no consensus among the experts, thats her "Supposition"

On the other hand Mark is of the opinion that because one company was able to deliver better "Tonal = sound quality" (in this case) it is actually possible to improve the same. This is his "supposition".

So their initial briefs about the subject are radically opposed in a sense and hence E is the best choice.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
believerinthy
Joined: 30 Nov 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2023
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 77
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Products:
Posts: 29
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
richirish
believerinthy
serbiano
OA is E.

This is one of the greatest Method of Reasoning questions of all time. First take a close look at the statements made by Jane and Mark. In the majority of GMAT questions with two speakers—one identifiably male and the other identifiably female—the male makes a mistake or an error of reasoning and the female uses sound reasoning. This does not occur in every problem, but it occurs enough to be more than random. Why? The thinking goes that in order for GMAC to protect themselves against accusations that they are biased against women, they create problems where the male is clearly the one using faulty reasoning. Jane’s position: Jane concludes that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless because there is no way to evaluate a guitar sound and determine what constitutes a better-sounding guitar. Mark’s position: Mark also agrees that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless, but Mark’s reasoning is that if Harper’s ideas really worked, then they would have been adopted by now. In making this analysis, Mark reveals that he believes there is a way to determine that one guitar sounds better than another. Like all GMAT questions, you must lock down the exact nature of the premises and conclusions! Mark’s initial comment of “What’s more” leads most people to believe he is in complete agreement with Jane. Yes, he agrees with her conclusion, but his reason for doing so is completely contrary to Jane’s reason. Mark actually misinterprets Jane’s claim, and this is why he says “What’s more,” as if he is adding an additional piece of information that supports her position. He is not; the premise that he uses contradicts Jane’s premises. If you simply accept “What’s more” to mean that he is in complete agreement with Jane, you will most certainly miss the question, and have no idea you have done so. The problem becomes even more challenging because the answer choices are brilliantly constructed:

Answer choice (A): Mark does not address a weakness in Jane’s argument or show how one could be overcome. Do not mistake the use of “What’s more” to automatically mean that he is adding something helpful to the situation.

Answer choice (B): This is an answer chosen by many people, and it has Shell game aspects. Mark’s argument does not have a premise in common with Jane’s argument; rather, Mark’s argument has the conclusion in common with Jane’s argument. Before you select this answer, use the Fact Test and ask yourself, “Which premise do the two arguments have in common?” You won’t be able to find one, and that would instantly disprove the answer.

Answer choice (C): This is a very clever Reverse Answer choice. The answer states: “Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.” In fact, the following happens in the stimulus: “Mark and Jane use different techniques to argue for similar conclusions.” If you had any doubt that the makers of the GMAT put the same amount of work into the wrong answers as the correct answers, this answer choice should be convince you that they do.

Answer choice (D): An argument is the sum of the premises and conclusion. Although Mark restates Jane’s conclusion, he does not restate her premises. Therefore, he does not restate her argument and this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed in the argument analysis, Jane believes that there is no way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sounds. On the opposite side, Mark’s response indicates he believes that there is a way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sound (“because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality”) and thus the two have conflicting positions. This is another great example of a separator question: one that scorers in a certain range will get and scorers in a lower range will not get.

This is also a dangerous question because many people think they have chosen the correct answer when in fact they have missed it. The lesson here is that you must be an active, prepared reader. Do not allow yourself to be lured by Mark’s comment of “What’s more” into believing that he automatically is in agreement with Jane. The test makers use that phrase to see if you will read closely enough to discern his real argument or if you will simply gloss over his comments on the basis of how they are introduced. The GMAT always makes you pay if you gloss over any section of a stimulus.




I completely agree with you on this but the word supposition indicates that Mark has no basis for his theory of conclusion but he does?
Can you shed some light over the same.

Thankyou.

It took me about a minute to solve so let me try and offer a simpler explanation.

Jane fundamentally believes that there is no way to discern an improvement in sound quality as there is no consensus among the experts, thats her "Supposition"

On the other hand Mark is of the opinion that because one company was able to deliver better "Tonal = sound quality" (in this case) it is actually possible to improve the same. This is his "supposition".

So their initial briefs about the subject are radically opposed in a sense and hence E is the best choice.

Hope it helps.




a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis. - Supposition.

But mark does have proof or relevant knowledge, so he's not supposing he's actually speaking the facts.
That's why I can't take supposition for mark while for Jane yes.
User avatar
richirish
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 09 Feb 2021
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 127
Kudos: 60
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
believerinthy
richirish
believerinthy
serbiano
OA is E.

This is one of the greatest Method of Reasoning questions of all time. First take a close look at the statements made by Jane and Mark. In the majority of GMAT questions with two speakers—one identifiably male and the other identifiably female—the male makes a mistake or an error of reasoning and the female uses sound reasoning. This does not occur in every problem, but it occurs enough to be more than random. Why? The thinking goes that in order for GMAC to protect themselves against accusations that they are biased against women, they create problems where the male is clearly the one using faulty reasoning. Jane’s position: Jane concludes that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless because there is no way to evaluate a guitar sound and determine what constitutes a better-sounding guitar. Mark’s position: Mark also agrees that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless, but Mark’s reasoning is that if Harper’s ideas really worked, then they would have been adopted by now. In making this analysis, Mark reveals that he believes there is a way to determine that one guitar sounds better than another. Like all GMAT questions, you must lock down the exact nature of the premises and conclusions! Mark’s initial comment of “What’s more” leads most people to believe he is in complete agreement with Jane. Yes, he agrees with her conclusion, but his reason for doing so is completely contrary to Jane’s reason. Mark actually misinterprets Jane’s claim, and this is why he says “What’s more,” as if he is adding an additional piece of information that supports her position. He is not; the premise that he uses contradicts Jane’s premises. If you simply accept “What’s more” to mean that he is in complete agreement with Jane, you will most certainly miss the question, and have no idea you have done so. The problem becomes even more challenging because the answer choices are brilliantly constructed:

Answer choice (A): Mark does not address a weakness in Jane’s argument or show how one could be overcome. Do not mistake the use of “What’s more” to automatically mean that he is adding something helpful to the situation.

Answer choice (B): This is an answer chosen by many people, and it has Shell game aspects. Mark’s argument does not have a premise in common with Jane’s argument; rather, Mark’s argument has the conclusion in common with Jane’s argument. Before you select this answer, use the Fact Test and ask yourself, “Which premise do the two arguments have in common?” You won’t be able to find one, and that would instantly disprove the answer.

Answer choice (C): This is a very clever Reverse Answer choice. The answer states: “Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.” In fact, the following happens in the stimulus: “Mark and Jane use different techniques to argue for similar conclusions.” If you had any doubt that the makers of the GMAT put the same amount of work into the wrong answers as the correct answers, this answer choice should be convince you that they do.

Answer choice (D): An argument is the sum of the premises and conclusion. Although Mark restates Jane’s conclusion, he does not restate her premises. Therefore, he does not restate her argument and this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed in the argument analysis, Jane believes that there is no way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sounds. On the opposite side, Mark’s response indicates he believes that there is a way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sound (“because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality”) and thus the two have conflicting positions. This is another great example of a separator question: one that scorers in a certain range will get and scorers in a lower range will not get.

This is also a dangerous question because many people think they have chosen the correct answer when in fact they have missed it. The lesson here is that you must be an active, prepared reader. Do not allow yourself to be lured by Mark’s comment of “What’s more” into believing that he automatically is in agreement with Jane. The test makers use that phrase to see if you will read closely enough to discern his real argument or if you will simply gloss over his comments on the basis of how they are introduced. The GMAT always makes you pay if you gloss over any section of a stimulus.




I completely agree with you on this but the word supposition indicates that Mark has no basis for his theory of conclusion but he does?
Can you shed some light over the same.

Thankyou.

It took me about a minute to solve so let me try and offer a simpler explanation.

Jane fundamentally believes that there is no way to discern an improvement in sound quality as there is no consensus among the experts, thats her "Supposition"

On the other hand Mark is of the opinion that because one company was able to deliver better "Tonal = sound quality" (in this case) it is actually possible to improve the same. This is his "supposition".

So their initial briefs about the subject are radically opposed in a sense and hence E is the best choice.

Hope it helps.




a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis. - Supposition.

But mark does have proof or relevant knowledge, so he's not supposing he's actually speaking the facts.
That's why I can't take supposition for mark while for Jane yes.


With all due respect you are confused, Mark is not offering evidence he is merely pointing out to a "case" showing that improvement in sound quality is possible because someone sold more guitars and the reason they sold more guitars was because of the improved tonal quality, he does not have actual "proof" of improvement, remember co-relation is not causation.

This is a tough question but the OA is not debatable at all in the case, but that's my opinion.
User avatar
CEdward
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Why can't we infer in B that Mark also thinks Harper's idea has no value. His point about adoption suggests that if the guitars did in fact have any value, then people would have adopted them, but they didn't. Ergo they have no value.
avatar
lehung978
Joined: 29 Nov 2020
Last visit: 07 Apr 2025
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 26
Posts: 7
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I got it wrong (B while kinda cannot completely eliminating E), but understand right away why E is right.

HERE, they both agree that the Prof's guitar design sucks. But this is not the premise. Basically Jane says "There is no such thing as consensus in good guitar sound." Mark, on the other hand, said something like "If it's good, it would probably be adopted" (aka. there is one)

So the two ideas are inherently opposing each other, even though they both agree that the new guitar design sucks.

--> OA is E
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,720
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,720
Kudos: 2,258
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Jane: Professor Harper’s ideas for modifying the design of guitars are of no value because there is no general agreement among musicians as to what a guitar should sound like and, consequently, no widely accepted basis for evaluating the merits of a guitar’s sound.

Mark: What’s more, Harper’s ideas have had enough time to be adopted if they really resulted in superior sound. It took only ten years for the Torres design for guitars to be almost universally adopted because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between Jane’s argument and Mark’s argument?

A. Mark’s argument shows how a weakness in Jane’s argument can be overcome.

B. Mark’s argument has a premise in common with Jane’s argument.

C. Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.

D. Mark’s argument restates Jane’s argument in other terms.

E. Mark’s argument and Jane’s argument are based on conflicting suppositions.
If someone pays enough attention to the highlighted text in Mark's argument, one will surely get the contrasting conclusion that he makes to Jane's.
Weakness, techniques and restating are irrelevant things that can be eliminated. Only 'common premise' seems to go in right direction, however, it's not. Mark's conclusion suggests that he has a different interpretation of Jane's argument.

Answer E.
avatar
Judus1010
Joined: 01 Jun 2021
Last visit: 03 Jul 2022
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 6
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The weakness in Jane's argument is that she relies on there being no objective way to judge the merits of a guitar's sound. That's a very big weakness especially if there ARE widely agreed upon merritts on which to judge the sound of a guitar. Mark overcomes this weakness by saying that even if musicians DO agree on what a guitar should sound like, there has been ample time for the new guitar design to be adopted if it really did improve the sound.

The weakness in Jane's argument is a glarying one. Of course there is a consensus among musicians on what a guitar should sound like. If that wasn't the case, we would not hear the consistent guitar sounds we hear in music. We would be hearing all sorts of strange odd "guitars". lol. Any feedback would be appreciated.
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,720
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,720
Kudos: 2,258
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Judus1010
The weakness in Jane's argument is that she relies on there being no objective way to judge the merits of a guitar's sound. That's a very big weakness especially if there ARE widely agreed upon merritts on which to judge the sound of a guitar. Mark overcomes this weakness by saying that even if musicians DO agree on what a guitar should sound like, there has been ample time for the new guitar design to be adopted if it really did improve the sound.

The weakness in Jane's argument is a glarying one. Of course there is a consensus among musicians on what a guitar should sound like. If that wasn't the case, we would not hear the consistent guitar sounds we hear in music. We would be hearing all sorts of strange odd "guitars". lol. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Judus1010
It seems that you are sticking only on to weakness aspect of the argument. However, it is not the case since J makes a generic statement - possibly with very little study. This limit is given a vastness by M by mentioning that there is one design that is generally accepted - an exception may be but this is out of scope if we say so.

Still, if you think that weakness in J's argument is pointed out by M, note the starting words 'What’s more' used by M which suggests that M is adding to what J stated and not pointing out a weakness. However, even after so if any part of your mind thinks that it is a weakness that was point out by M then I believe you are making a more worst error a student can make - please excuse me for saying it in such manner. The error is that you are bringing your own judgment - an external knowledge - which costs dearly in the exam. And you are not wrong in saying that as any one who reads J's statement at first would say that J is wrong in making such a generic statement. I too felt so but when words 'What’s more' were used by M then it was clear that weakness is not at all the core of the argument.

HTH.
User avatar
kanavsahgal
Joined: 28 Apr 2025
Last visit: 18 Sep 2025
Posts: 9
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 9
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Really solid explanation.

Thanks!

serbiano
Jane: Professor Harper’s ideas for modifying the design of guitars are of no value because there is no general agreement among musicians as to what a guitar should sound like and, consequently, no widely accepted basis for evaluating the merits of a guitar’s sound.

Mark: What’s more, Harper’s ideas have had enough time to be adopted if they really resulted in superior sound. It took only ten years for the Torres design for guitars to be almost universally adopted because of the improvement it makes in tonal quality. Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between Jane’s argument and Mark’s argument?


A. Mark’s argument shows how a weakness in Jane’s argument can be overcome.

B. Mark’s argument has a premise in common with Jane’s argument.

C. Mark and Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.

D. Mark’s argument restates Jane’s argument in other terms.

E. Mark’s argument and Jane’s argument are based on conflicting suppositions.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts