Literary geniuses known for their sad poetry have unusually high

Question

Literary geniuses known for their sad poetry have unusually high suicidal tendencies. A new medicine has been proven to be able to cure such tendencies by easing the feeling of sadness; however, any use of such medicine by these literary geniuses will be a loss to the poetic world.

The argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?

A. Literary geniuses know for their sad poetry differ in the intensity of their suicidal tendencies.
B. The medicine directly impacts the poetic creativity of an individual.
C. The sadness felt by the literary geniuses contributes to the poetic value of their work.
D. The medicine can alter suicidal tendencies to different extents in different individuals.
E. Suicidal tendencies are not present in people who do not write sad poetry.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

winterschool · Answer

A is not relevant to argument
B support argument, because argument doesnt stated that the medicine impacts the poetic creativity
C less sad feeling = less great work; it makes a link between sad feeling and loss to the poetic world
D irrelevant
E additional info

C is best choice

Oppenheimer1945 · Answer

A. Literary geniuses know for their sad poetry differ in the  intensity  of their suicidal tendencies.
B. The medicine directly impacts the poetic  creativity  of an individual.
C. The sadness felt by the literary geniuses contributes to the poetic value of their work.
D. The medicine can alter suicidal tendencies to  different extents in different individuals. 
E. Suicidal tendencies are not present in  people who do not write sad poetry .

Red phrases makes the thing out of scope. 
C is the lead answer here without mistakes

Catman · Answer

Author Argument Literary Geniuses who known for sad poetry have  unusually  high suicidal tendencies.
New medicine will reduce this suicidal tendencies, by reducing this feeling of sadness.
Conclusion-> however, any use of such medicine by these literary geniuses will be a loss to the poetic world.

Assumption-> Literary geniuses sadness leads to high suicidal tendencies and due to this they are able to produce sad poetry.

A. Literary geniuses know for their sad poetry  differ in the intensity  of their suicidal tendencies. The different suicidal tendencies among literary geniuses will lead to some geniuses able to write sad poetry, without the need of new medicine, and this will not be a loss to the poetic world.

B. The medicine directly impacts the poetic creativity of an  individual . Argument is about literary genius and not individuals.

C.  The sadness felt by the literary geniuses contributes to the poetic value of their work. 
True, if they will not feel sad they will not have suicidal tendencies and not able to produce sad poetry which will be a loss to the poetic world.

D. The medicine can alter suicidal tendencies to different extents in  different individuals . Again individuals are used, but argument is about literary geniuses. Also if medicine alters suicidal tendencies differently than it may be possible that some literary geniuses still able to write sad poetry under medication.

E. Suicidal tendencies are not present in people  who do not write sad poetry .
Argument is about literary genius who write sad poetry, if they are not having suicidal tendencies than there is no need of medicine and this will not have any impact on the poetic world.

Bunuel · Answer

Experts' Global Video Explanation:

fjVpLK63aWU

Usernamevisible · Answer

The author has argued: medicine reduces sadness; therefore, using it is a loss to the poetic world. The author never said, "The medicine affects creativity." So you cannot rescue the argument by adding a completely new premise. Think of it this way: the author's argument is A → B, therefore C. You must find the missing link between B and C. You are proposing A → D → C, but D was never part of the author's reasoning, so it cannot be a necessary assumption. A simple analogy makes this clear. Suppose the argument is: "It rained. Therefore, the roads are wet." The necessary assumption is that rain makes roads wet. If instead you propose, "A water truck sprayed the roads," that could also explain why the roads are wet, but the author was never arguing about a water truck. Likewise here, the author's chain is: Medicine → Less sadness → ? → Loss to poetry. Option C completes that chain. Option B starts a different chain: Medicine → Lower creativity → Loss to poetry. A necessary assumption must complete the author's chain, not invent a new one.

Literary geniuses known for their sad poetry have unusually high

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Literary geniuses known for their sad poetry have unusually high

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards