Marvin’s behavior at the party last night is fascinating in that there

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.

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 !

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
_________________

mivas
Option (B) does not challenge any premise.

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

It tells us that the examiner is skilled at detecting spillage. He has been able to detect even in cases when it was more difficult to detect, say when spillage was hidden or inside a crack etc.

Here he was not able to detect any spillage increases the likelihood that there was no spillage. When an expert could not detect it, it does make it more likely that no spillage happened (but doesn't prove beyond doubt).
Since we want to strengthen our argument, knowing that the examiner is an expert strengthens it.

Could you please post OE? Would like to see what veritasprep experts say

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?

In option (B), "the person examining the tile" is the same as the person examining the tile in our case of Marvin & party last night.

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 that the person who was examining last night has been able to detect such evidence in even more difficult to detect places in other cases (at other parties on other days). So it tells us that he is skilled at detecting evidence.
If he couldn't detect, it makes it more likely that there is no evidence.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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

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!