Iwillget770 wrote:
Thank You
AnthonyRitz.
I generally get confused to what is within the logical boundaries to assume and what not.
So , Lets take the example of this question.
In Option C
Quote:
To justify the Billing Department's higher expenditures, we might want to show that the Billing Department requires more supplies than the Accounting Department does. The problem with C is simply that it doesn't say that.
(C) The work of Billing now requires a wider variety of clerical supplies than it did in the past.
Okay, so what? Billing requires more supplies than it used to. But does it require more supplies than Accounting does? Maybe Billing used to require very little, and now requires a medium amount -- but it still uses a ton, and that's a problem. Maybe Accounting also now requires more supplies than it used to. Work nowadays just takes more supplies than it used to, for everyone, perhaps. None of this shows or even remotely hints that Billing requires more supplies than Accounting does.
We can reason for Option E in the similar lines as well.
Quote:
As for E, I just don't find it very speculative to say that if
Quote:
(E)
Quote:
Members of Accounting found the clerical supplies cabinet of Billing more convenient to go to for supplies than their own department’s cabinet.
... then those members probably do in fact use supplies from the clerical supplies cabinet of Billing.
This isn't a huge assumption, to me. In fact, if it's true, then it it is very, very likely the explanation of more supplies being used from the Billing Department.
May be MOA
found clerical supplies cabinet of Billing more convenient in the past but now they don't find.
May be Members of Billing dont allow the members of Accounting to use from their cabinet.
All I want to understand is whether my assumptions (or logical interpretation from the option) is far fetched or is reasonable.
I hope I was able to explain my doubt.
Regards
This is fair. I think evaluating how significant a gap is comes down to what you have evidence for, combined with a little bit of common sense.
For instance, you highlight the word "found," but if Accounting "found" the Billing supply cabinet more convenient, then wouldn't we think they probably still "find" it more convenient, absent any other information? And regardless, couldn't Billing's current charges for supplies still be affected by even (recent) prior use of supplies? I mean, I pay now to replace the supplies that I used up before, right? So there's at least circumstantial evidence that suggests that probably this could explain the situation. Any speculation we're doing is far less than painting a picture from a blank canvas.
On the other hand, I don't see how C provides any real evidence that Billing needs more supplies than Accounting does. How does it help at all? We're painting a picture out of nothing here. Hell, I could pick D (or A or B or really anything) and say, "oh, by the way, they didn't say this, but Billing requires more supplies than Accounting does, so there you go."
Two dialogues:
1.
Argument: "Billing pays for more supplies to do the same work, so Billing is wasting supplies."
E: "No, but see, Accounting found it more convenient to use supplies from Billing's supply cabinet."
Argument: "So what?"
E: "So, probably, Accounting did, in fact, use supplies from Billing's cabinet, which would depress Accounting's supply costs and raise Billing's. In that case, Billing's higher costs don't show any waste."
Argument: "Yeah, but that was in the past."
E: "Sure, but past use could easily account for current costs, since we have to replace what we used before, and anyway if Accounting found this more convenient in the past they probably still do now."
Argument: "Couldn't something have changed?"
E: "Sure, but we have no evidence that it did."
Argument:
2.
Argument: "Billing pays for more supplies to do the same work, so Billing is wasting supplies."
C: "No, but see, Billing needs more supplies than they used to."
Argument: "So what?"
C: "So they probably need more supplies than Accounting does. In that case, Billing's higher costs don't show any waste."
Argument: "If Billing needs more supplies than they used to, wouldn't Accounting probably need more supplies too?"
C: "Yeah, but we don't know that."
Argument: "Sure, but there's evidence. We're not asking for certainty here, but the fact that the two departments do basically the same work, in basically the same place, strongly suggests that they would probably need basically the same resources to get the job done. If one department's needs increased, the other's probably did too."
C:
Argument: "Also, even if that's not the case, how do we know that Billing didn't just need less than Accounting in the past, and now they need the same amount? Is that story any less likely than the story in which they used to need the same amount, but now Billing needs more?"
C: "It could go either way. Doesn't that mean I weakened the argument?"
Argument: "In some sense, it could have gone either way before. What evidence did you add that bears on this question, exactly?"
C:
I feel like each dialogue ends where the evidence runs out, and any further step in each would be where rank speculation takes over.
_________________
Anthony RitzDirector of Test Prep
Read my reviews on GMAT Club