It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 12:21

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 344

Kudos [?]: 226 [2], given: 403

GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2015, 14:11
2
This post received
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

62% (01:11) correct 38% (01:44) wrong based on 464 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

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

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

(C) People often turn a blind eye toward cruelty if it results in something beneficial or entertaining to them.

(D) The cruelty of methods used by animal trainers in the Jumbo Circus was exaggerated in the article.

(E) The higher prices on Jumbo Circus tickets were caused by a permanent need to treat animals that were injured during trainings.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 226 [2], given: 403

Expert Post
Optimus Prep Instructor
User avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1905

Kudos [?]: 525 [0], given: 23

Re: Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2015, 20:51
Hi samichange ,
In this case we need to find a choice that says that the people are unaffected by the article.
Only options B and C do that, but C is too far fetched. We cannot say anything about the attitude of people towards cruelty.

Hence Option B is the answer
_________________

Janielle Williams

Customer Support

Special Offer: $80-100/hr. Online Private Tutoring
GMAT On Demand Course $299
Free Online Trial Hour

Kudos [?]: 525 [0], given: 23

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 324

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 15

Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.76
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2015, 06:48
Hi Experts

Kindly help us on how to resolve this by negation technique
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

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

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.


If we apply it here on B

People who go to other circuses are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

But this doesn't effect the conclusion in fact A is better in weakening the conclusion when negated

Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

Kindly help us on this

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 15

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2015
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 10 [1], given: 21

Re: Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2015, 13:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
kanigmat011 wrote:
Hi Experts

Kindly help us on how to resolve this by negation technique
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

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

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.


If we apply it here on B

People who go to other circuses are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

But this doesn't effect the conclusion in fact A is better in weakening the conclusion when negated

Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

Kindly help us on this



If we look close, the fact that people are aware of the cruelty is implicit.

in other circuses that still attract crowds ........... no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, ...........not because the cruelty ....... was revealed.


But if we ask what can be the reason that people stopped visiting Jumbo, but still visit other circuses(where there is still animal cruelty), the answer is easily the Price being doubled. That implies price is the only difference, cruelty was already there--> people were aware of it.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Thanks,

Manas

------------------------------
Big Ideas, Small Steps

Kudos [?]: 10 [1], given: 21

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 319

Kudos [?]: 205 [0], given: 159

Daboo: Sonu
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V20
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 May 2016, 02:11
samichange wrote:
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. However, in other circuses that still attract crowds of visitors, animal trainers use methods that are no less cruel than the ones used by Jumbo Circus. Therefore, it is more likely that Jumbo’s attendance has dropped because its ticket prices have almost doubled, not because the cruelty of the animal trainers was revealed.

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

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did not drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.

(C) People often turn a blind eye toward cruelty if it results in something beneficial or entertaining to them.

(D) The cruelty of methods used by animal trainers in the Jumbo Circus was exaggerated in the article.

(E) The higher prices on Jumbo Circus tickets were caused by a permanent need to treat animals that were injured during trainings.


option B will be right ans
if we negate option b it will shatter the conclusion
_________________

You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come.

Give Kudos if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 205 [0], given: 159

Chat Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 580

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 139

Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2016, 20:26
If we negate A --

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

--- Then we hurt the conclusion since the reason for the drop is based on cruelty on the animals and not because of price hike. However, this statement is similar to the statement in the stimulus - "Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. " --> Is that the reason why we eliminate A?

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.


- People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses but could be aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus. Hence it should be price hike that led to price drop in Jumbo circus --> If we negate B, doesn't it actually support the conclusion rather than breaking it? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 139

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3325 [1], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2016, 03:52
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
warriorguy wrote:
If we negate A --

(A) Attendance at the Jumbo Circus did drastically decrease after the article revealing the cruelty of its animal trainers was published.

--- Then we hurt the conclusion since the reason for the drop is based on cruelty on the animals and not because of price hike. However, this statement is similar to the statement in the stimulus - "Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo Circus to an article published six months ago in the TIME magazine that revealed the cruelty of methods used by the Jumbo's animal trainers. " --> Is that the reason why we eliminate A?

(B) People who go to other circuses are aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses.


- People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses but could be aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus. Hence it should be price hike that led to price drop in Jumbo circus --> If we negate B, doesn't it actually support the conclusion rather than breaking it? :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:


Option A is a weakening statement as you have correctly mentioned.

Negating B:
People are not aware of the cruel methods used by animal trainers in those circuses (but are aware of the cruelty in Jumbo circus.) Thus the reason for not going to Jumbo Circus may not be the price difference, but the people's sentiment against animal cruelty. This inference is exactly opposite of the conlusion of the argument. Hence option B is an assumption.

Kudos [?]: 3325 [1], given: 22

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3157

Kudos [?]: 3325 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2016, 07:42
warriorguy wrote:

Hello,

I have few queries as below:-

1. When you mentioned that option A is a weakener. Am i correct to assume that it weakens the argument post negation?
2. If negating a statement relates it to one of the premises, can we consider it as an assumption? I am assuming { :) } the answer is NO, since by definition, assumption is something which is not defined in the argument but if true binds the premise with the conclusion.
3. Main concern: The conclusion states that --> B caused A, not C. If we had to break the conclusion, shouldn't we establish that it was indeed C which caused A and not B.

In Option B, we are introducing another factor (sentiment) which could have caused A. Is that allowed?


1. Yes, your understanding is correct. I conveyed my agreement with your statement in the previous post about option A.
2. What you have stated in point 2 is for strengthening statements. An assumption MUST BE TRUE not IF TRUE.
3. Yes, you are right. Negating option B establishes that C caused A, not B.

Kudos [?]: 3325 [0], given: 22

Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 897

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 865

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 09:19
this is a common pattern in gmat, kaplan 800 has this pattern. Nevertheless, this pattern is very tricky because test takers often mistakes assumption for strengthener or weakener.
A and D are OFS. E is weakener and OFS (talk about price)
B is better than C. (b/c C is OFS and strengthener and unclear and too broad)

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 865

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C   [#permalink] 14 Aug 2017, 09:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Many people attribute the recent decrease in attendance at the Jumbo C

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.