Last visit was: 19 Jul 2024, 06:02 It is currently 19 Jul 2024, 06:02
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Jan 2013
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 171 [26]
Given Kudos: 19
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15125
Own Kudos [?]: 66728 [9]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
General Discussion
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4558
Own Kudos [?]: 33604 [2]
Given Kudos: 4565
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
carcass wrote:
gmatprep1982 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage. this doesn't explain Marvin situation
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner. This is tricky but doesn't explain IF marvin drunk entirely punch or not
D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found. Idem
E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank. Idem

Please help me understand why B is the correct answer?
Why can't E be the correct answer. Doesn't E give us an alternate reason that Strengthens the conclusion that Marvin must not have drunk the entire punch bowl.

In B, the answer seems exaggerated by stating that the person examining the title for evidence has been able to detect such evidence in considerably MORE obscure, HIDDEN places. I would have gone with this answer if it didn't include words like more obscure and hidden places.

Thanks for the help.



E doesn't weal the argument simply because is not related to it. E doesn't explain at all marvin's situation

Hope it is clear


Premise: There was no spillage.

A says that some is usually spilled. Hence we can conclude that Marvin didn't drink any?

Okay I think I got it while posting this. It says it's spilled when imbibed not drunk.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
gmatprep1982 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.
D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.
E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.

Please help me understand why B is the correct answer?
Why can't E be the correct answer. Doesn't E give us an alternate reason that Strengthens the conclusion that Marvin must not have drunk the entire punch bowl.




In B, the answer seems exaggerated by stating that the person examining the title for evidence has been able to detect such evidence in considerably MORE obscure, HIDDEN places. I would have gone with this answer if it didn't include words like more obscure and hidden places.

Thanks for the help.




can we not quote the answer with question so that people give a fair try to questions ! It defeats the purpose of the forum .You can post your answers or doubt as a separate thread !
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [4]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
4
Kudos
gmatprep1982 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.
D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.
E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.

Please help me understand why B is the correct answer?
Why can't E be the correct answer. Doesn't E give us an alternate reason that Strengthens the conclusion that Marvin must not have drunk the entire punch bowl.

In B, the answer seems exaggerated by stating that the person examining the title for evidence has been able to detect such evidence in considerably MORE obscure, HIDDEN places. I would have gone with this answer if it didn't include words like more obscure and hidden places.

Thanks for the help.



The answer is (B) and not (E) as on carefully reading the option (E) it suggests that in parties similar to this the punchbowl itself was thrown out of the window but in this case the punchbowl was left lying on table with all the punch being drank ....so this criteria of throwing away the punchBOWL contradicts with the case given which says only punch disappeared.
Hence (B) is the answer !
Moreover B is more accurate as it satisfies the premise that there was some spillage (If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled ) but it was not necessarily on table but in hidden corners !
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 258 [0]
Given Kudos: 109
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
Shilpi85 wrote:


The answer is (B) and not (E) as on carefully reading the option (E) it suggests that in parties similar to this the punchbowl itself was thrown out of the window but in this case the punchbowl was left lying on table with all the punch being drank ....so this criteria of throwing away the punchBOWL contradicts with the case given which says only punch disappeared.
Hence (B) is the answer !
Moreover B is more accurate as it satisfies the premise that there was some spillage (If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled ) but it was not necessarily on table but in hidden corners !


But doesnt the argument say that the person had examined the TILE carefully and found no evidence of spill. Then choice B is just injecting some new info which we are unsure of.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 138
Own Kudos [?]: 1225 [0]
Given Kudos: 172
GPA: 3.46
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
IMO B

Conclusion: Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl
Evidence: If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Hence, to strengthen the argument, we need to substantiate and strengthen force of this evidence to help strengthen the conclusion.

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage. Incorrect- Irrelevant. How does this strengthen?

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places. Hold on as this option does strengthen our argument.

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner. Incorrect- Martin's behavior is irrelevant to our conclusion

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found. Incorrect- This too is irrelevant to confirm our evidence. Even if we have other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed, it doesn't conclusively say anything to strengthen our argument.

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank. Incorrect- Irrelevant and out of scope too.

Thus, IMO B.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 317 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
Hi mba1382,
Thanks for your reply.
I was confused between option (b) and (e) but I choose (e).
How is option (e) irrelevant. If we consider this statement to be true then chances are rife that this punchbowl might have been thrown out of the window, thereby strengthening the argument that Marvin didn't drink the punch.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 138
Own Kudos [?]: 1225 [0]
Given Kudos: 172
GPA: 3.46
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
To answer your question, we must also look at the conclusion i.e. Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.. Looking at option E which merely says that in parties like the one mentioned, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank. This is a possiblity and moreover, the stem says that
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile.

Now can we say that option E provides an evidence to strengthen our conclusion? Surely this would not seem a strong evidence to arrive at our conclusion.

But when we look at option B, it conclusively allows us as an evidence to strengthen our conclusion. As in, we have an expert examining the relevant matter i.e. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places
This option indeed strengthens our evidence and conclusion.

Again I am no expert but the above was my understanding. Hope this helps. :-)


Sukant2010 wrote:
Hi mba1382,
Thanks for your reply.
I was confused between option (b) and (e) but I choose (e).
How is option (e) irrelevant. If we consider this statement to be true then chances are rife that this punchbowl might have been thrown out of the window, thereby strengthening the argument that Marvin didn't drink the punch.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 317 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
mba1382 wrote:
To answer your question, we must also look at the conclusion i.e. Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.. Looking at option E which merely says that in parties like the one mentioned, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank. This is a possiblity and moreover, the stem says that
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile.

Now can we say that option E provides an evidence to strengthen our conclusion? Surely this would not seem a strong evidence to arrive at our conclusion.

But when we look at option B, it conclusively allows us as an evidence to strengthen our conclusion. As in, we have an expert examining the relevant matter i.e. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places
This option indeed strengthens our evidence and conclusion.

Again I am no expert but the above was my understanding. Hope this helps. :-)


Sukant2010 wrote:
Hi mba1382,
Thanks for your reply.
I was confused between option (b) and (e) but I choose (e).
How is option (e) irrelevant. If we consider this statement to be true then chances are rife that this punchbowl might have been thrown out of the window, thereby strengthening the argument that Marvin didn't drink the punch.

Hi,
I completely agree with what you're trying to convey for option (b), but I am still not able to discern exactly how option (e) is not relevant to the statement and cannot be the answer.
I mean, even if he (or anyone else perhaps) has spilled the entire container out, then also the option explicitly states that the he has not drank it.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 141 [0]
Given Kudos: 559
Location: India
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
Sukant2010 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.

IMO B
A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.-Incorrect -Most drinks result in spillage doesnt mean that this time also it did hold true

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.-Correct

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.-Incorrect-Out of scope

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.-Incorrect It says the Punchbowl was consumed but doesnt say anything rergarding if it was consumed bu Marvin or not

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.-Incorrect.Doesnt explain Marvins situation

What is the OA? Can someone post it please..

Originally posted by aks456 on 28 Jan 2014, 05:56.
Last edited by aks456 on 28 Jan 2014, 08:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 317 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
akankshasoneja wrote:
Sukant2010 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.

IMO B
A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.-Incorrect -Most drinks result in spillage doesnt mean that this time also it did hold true

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.-Correct

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.-Incorrect-Out of scope

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.-Incorrect It says the Punchbowl was consumed but doesnt say anything rergarding if it was consumed bu Marvin or not

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.-Incorrect. Its actualy weakening the agrgument..Means Marvin didn't drink it

What is the OA? Can someone post it please..


Hi akankshasoneja,
OA is (b). How can option (e) weaken the argument.
The conclusion of the argument is that marvin didn't drink it. That's what option (e) saying. I was mainly confused between option (b) and (e) and I donot find any logical difference between the two.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 138
Own Kudos [?]: 1225 [1]
Given Kudos: 172
GPA: 3.46
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Could you please post OE? Would like to see what veritasprep experts say

Sukant2010 wrote:
akankshasoneja wrote:
Sukant2010 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.

IMO B
A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.-Incorrect -Most drinks result in spillage doesnt mean that this time also it did hold true

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.-Correct

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.-Incorrect-Out of scope

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.-Incorrect It says the Punchbowl was consumed but doesnt say anything rergarding if it was consumed bu Marvin or not

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.-Incorrect. Its actualy weakening the agrgument..Means Marvin didn't drink it

What is the OA? Can someone post it please..


Hi akankshasoneja,
OA is (b). How can option (e) weaken the argument.
The conclusion of the argument is that marvin didn't drink it. That's what option (e) saying. I was mainly confused between option (b) and (e) and I donot find any logical difference between the two.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 141 [0]
Given Kudos: 559
Location: India
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
Sukant2010 wrote:
akankshasoneja wrote:
Sukant2010 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.

IMO B
A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.-Incorrect -Most drinks result in spillage doesnt mean that this time also it did hold true

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.-Correct

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.-Incorrect-Out of scope

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.-Incorrect It says the Punchbowl was consumed but doesnt say anything rergarding if it was consumed bu Marvin or not

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.-Incorrect. Its actualy weakening the agrgument..Means Marvin didn't drink it

What is the OA? Can someone post it please..


Hi akankshasoneja,
OA is (b). How can option (e) weaken the argument.
The conclusion of the argument is that marvin didn't drink it. That's what option (e) saying. I was mainly confused between option (b) and (e) and I donot find any logical difference between the two.

Hello Sukant
My reasoning there was wrong... E will be eliminated because it talks about certain parties like the one... But that doesnt necessarily mean that the same thing happened with marvin.Hope it helps
Current Student
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 211
Own Kudos [?]: 477 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?


B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.... means the punch was actually not spilled....strengthens the conclusion by an evidence.............

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.some may be thrown out .....but don't forget .....the entire balance lot could be gulped up by my dear friend MARVIN....
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 317 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
semwal wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?


B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.... means the punch was actually not spilled....strengthens the conclusion by an evidence.............

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.some may be thrown out .....but don't forget .....the entire balance lot could be gulped up by my dear friend MARVIN....

Hi,
Your reasoning is right. But I guess 'some' here is referring to 'punchbowls' i.e. bowls of punch. May be if in a party there are 5 bowls of punch, then atleast one is spilled out. We are not actually talking about the 'punch' in the punchbowl.
If I am wrong, please correct me about this explanation.
Thanks in advance!
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94412
Own Kudos [?]: 642260 [0]
Given Kudos: 86318
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
Expert Reply
gmatprep1982 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.
B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.
C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.
D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.
E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.


Please help me understand why B is the correct answer?
Why can't E be the correct answer. Doesn't E give us an alternate reason that Strengthens the conclusion that Marvin must not have drunk the entire punch bowl.

In B, the answer seems exaggerated by stating that the person examining the title for evidence has been able to detect such evidence in considerably MORE obscure, HIDDEN places. I would have gone with this answer if it didn't include words like more obscure and hidden places.

Thanks for the help.


VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



Solution: B

One way to Strengthen this argument would be to strengthen the qualifications of the person who searched for the incriminating evidence. If that person is terrible at finding evidence of spilled punch, his testimony is of questionable value, but if that person has a track record of punch-detecting success, his failure to find the punch is potentially significant. (B) provides such approbation, making it the best option.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Aug 2019
Posts: 27
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
WE:Analyst (Retail)
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma wrote:
Sukant2010 wrote:
Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there is no evidence that he drank the entire container of punch despite the fact that he was the only person known to have been by the punchbowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would inevitably have spilled on the tile, but I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. Thus Marvin must not have drunk the entire punchbowl.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Most large drinks that have been imbibed at parties result in significant spillage.

B. The person examining the tile for evidence of spilled punch has been able to detect such evidence in considerably more obscure, hidden places.

C. Marvin’s behavior at the party was observed for the first time by the examiner.

D. Many of the other telltale signs of a punchbowl’s being consumed were found.

E. At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.


Let's analyze the argument.

Premises (assumed to be true):
- There is no evidence that Marvin drank the entire container of punch.
- He was the only person known to have been by the punch bowl between the time it was filled and the time it was observed to be empty. (Mind you, the premise doesn't say that he WAS the only person. It only says that he was the only person KNOWN to have been by the bowl. If someone else did go to the bowl, it is not known)
- If Marvin had drunk the entire bowl, then some of the punch would have spilled on the tile. (Taken to be a fact. If he had drunk the whole bowl, some punch would have spilled)
- I examined the tile carefully and found no evidence of spilled punch. (I examined and found no spillage is given. This doesn't mean there was no spillage. The point is that I found none)

Conclusion: Marvin must not have drunk the entire punch bowl.

There is one way in which we can prove beyond doubt that Marvin did not drink the entire punch bowl - if we can prove that there was certainly no spillage. 'I found no spillage' doesn't mean there was none. But if I am good at detecting spillage, it strengthens the conclusion that Marvin must not have drunk the entire punch bowl. It increases the probability that there is actually no spillage and hence the probability that Marvin did not drink the entire punch. Hence (B) is correct.

(E) At certain raucous parties like the party in question, some punchbowls are merely thrown out the window as part of a prank.
Option (E) provides an explanation of what could have happened to the punch (might have been thrown out - one of many possibilities) in case Marvin did not drink all of it. It doesn't strengthen the conclusion that Marvin did not drink the entire punch.


Hello Karishma,
Correct me if my reasoning is incorrect, but ain't option B that the person examining the tile was able to find such evidence in some obscure or hidden places means Marvin could have drunk the Punchbowl at those places, and hence the spillage was at those places. Ultimately proving that Marvin drank the entire punchbowl.
Using this reasoning I eliminated option B and selected E (best among the available options).

Since option B neither specifies that the evidence was not of punchbowl spillage but of something else (proving that the detective skills of the person examining the tile are good and we can not question his claim of no spillage of punchbowl on the tile) nor does it specify that those hidden/obscure places were somewhere Marvin did not go - (proving that at those places Marvin did not go while there was spillage hence somebody else must have drank the punchbowl - strengthing the conclusion), it leaves the argument conclusion hanging and does not strengthen the conclusion.
Hence option E is the best from the available options.

Let me know if my reasoning is incorrect.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Apr 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: India
GRE 1: Q165 V153
Send PM
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
1
Kudos
VeritasKarishma
B does make sense. But I eliminated it because it seems to challenge the premise. My understanding is that the premise in GMAT is to be taken as truth and not to be questioned. In this particular question, there is no other option besides B which make sense. But in general(For actual Gmat questions) is it a good strategy to reject answer choices that are questioning the truth of the premise?
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts