Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper column describing a strange natural phenomen

Question

Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper column describing a strange natural phenomenon on the Mendels’ farm led many people to trespass on and extensively damage their property. Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels’ farm.

The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) One should pay for any damage that one’s action leads other people to cause if one could have reasonably expected that the action would lead other people to cause damage.

(B) One should pay for damage that one’s action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause that damage.

(C) It is unlikely that the people who trespassed on and caused the damage to the Mendels’ property would themselves pay for the damage they caused.

(D) Ms. Sandstrom knew that her column could incite trespassing that could result in damage to the Mendels’ farm.

(E) The Mendels believe that Ms. Sandstrom is able to form reasonable expectations about the consequences of her actions.

barsec · Answer

(A) One should pay for any damage that one’s action leads other people to cause if one could have reasonably expected that the action would lead other people to cause damage.

Correct. The conclusion states that if someone could have reasonably expected an action they should be liable for the damages that they cause. (A) has to be assumed for the conclusion to work.

(B) One should pay for damage that one’s action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause that damage.

"only" is a limiter. The conclusion could still be inferred if there are other reasons to pay damages alongside the one given.

(C) It is unlikely that the people who trespassed on and caused the damage to the Mendels’ property would themselves pay for the damage they caused.

Unrelated to the conclusion.

(D) Ms. Sandstrom knew that her column could incite trespassing that could result in damage to the Mendels’ farm.

Unrelated to the conclusion.

(E) The Mendels believe that Ms. Sandstrom is able to form reasonable expectations about the consequences of her actions.

Again this doesn't need to be true. The conclusion of the paragraph is already asserting that Ms. Sandstrom should pay IF she can form a reasonable expectation about the damages that were done, and it is not asserting that she should necessarily pay for it because she DOES have this ability.

IMO A

ahabib · Answer

Break it down:
 
Expect damage -> Pay for it

Prethink:  Couldn't come up with anything on this one..

C,D,E  are all irrelevant and easy to eliminate, which leaves us with A&B

(C) It is unlikely that the people who trespassed on and caused the damage to the Mendels’ property would themselves pay for the damage they caused.
 
 (D) Ms. Sandstrom knew that her column could incite trespassing that could result in damage to the Mendels’ farm.
 
 (E) The Mendels believe that Ms. Sandstrom is able to form reasonable expectations about the consequences of her actions.

(A) One should pay for any damage that one’s action leads other people to cause if one could have reasonably expected that the action would lead other people to cause damage.

Good

(B) One should pay for damage that one’s action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause  that  damage.

We're not talking about  specific  damage.. This insinuates that if she expected lesser damage  she would only be responsible for what she expected (A portion/fraction of the total), and not the TOTAL damage.

Prasannathawait · Answer

IMO A is the answer.

(A) One should pay for any damage that one’s action leads other people to cause if one could have reasonably expected that the action would lead other people to cause damage.

Because if this is not assumed, then the conclusion cannot be true.

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everybody,

Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper column describing a strange natural phenomenon on the Mendels’ farm led many people to trespass on and extensively damage their property. Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels’ farm.

The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

Pre-thinking:
 The argument conclusion is dependent on a condition.
condition: MS S should have expected the results of her article
conclusion: MS S has to pay

We need to validate this link. 
What if  expecting  does not necessarily means that MS S has to pay. In this situation the argument would break down.
Assumption: If you can expect bad consequences when you write an article then you are supposed to pay.

(A) One should pay for any damage that one’s action leads other people to cause if one could have reasonably expected that the action would lead other people to cause damage.
 In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

(B) One should pay for damage that one’s action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action would lead other people to cause that damage.
  only if  makes it a little extreme and in choice A the use of reasonably works better with the argument. Hence incorrect

(C) It is unlikely that the people who trespassed on and caused the damage to the Mendels’ property would themselves pay for the damage they caused.
 Irrelevant to the reasoning. Hence incorrect

(D) Ms. Sandstrom knew that her column could incite trespassing that could result in damage to the Mendels’ farm.
 Whether she knew it or not is out of the scope of the argument. The argument is concerned with the obligation of paying if a condition is met. Hence incorrect

(E) The Mendels believe that Ms. Sandstrom is able to form reasonable expectations about the consequences of her actions.
 irrelevant to the reasoning

Aviral1995 · Answer

I think B is wrong because of keyword "prior to action" - nothing about this is mentioned in the main argument

deveshj21 · Answer

nightblade354 
I rejected answer choice B because it lays emphasis on EXPECTED rather than SHE COULD HAVE EXPECTED, hence turning possibility into certainty.

am i correct in my analysis, if not what could be the legitimate reason for rejecting choice B.

Regards

nightblade354 · Answer

Don't worry about this problem because it isn't an assumption question. This is a sufficient assumption question, and these do not show up on the GMAT; negation doesn't work here. Negation works on necessary assumption questions, which are tested on the GMAT.

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
The argument in the passage begins with the premise that Sandstrom's column led many people to trespass on and damage the Mendels' farm. The argument concludes that if Sandstrom could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the farm, then she should pay for the damage. You are asked to identify an assumption that would enable the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred.

The Correct Answer:

A  The argument claims that Sandstrom's action of writing the column led other people to cause damage to the Mendels' farm. In combination with (A), this implies that Sandstrom should pay for this damage if she could have reasonably expected that writing the column would lead people to cause damage. That is the conclusion of the argument, so (A) enables the conclusion to be properly inferred.

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

B  The argument concludes that Sandstrom should pay for the damage  if  a certain condition is met. (B) limits when people should pay for damage: they should pay  only if  a certain condition is met. We don’t know whether the condition in (B) actually is met, since we don’t know that Sandstrom actually expected that her column would lead people to damage the farm. But even if the condition in (B) were met, assuming (B) would not enable the conclusion to be properly interred. Since (B) limits when people should pay for damage, it can imply that a person is  not  required to pay tor damage (because the condition isn’t met), but it cannot imply that a person should pay.

C  The fact that the trespassers will not pay for the damage establishes that someone else would need to pay for it, but it does not imply anything about who should pay. So (C) does not enable the conclusion to be properly inferred.

D  Even if we assume (D), we cannot properly infer the conclusion without an additional assumption. Neither (D) nor the premises of the argument provide any link between knowing that an action could lead people to cause damage and a requirement to pay. Without such a link, there is no way to infer the conclusion of the argument.

E  (E) tells us something that the Mendels believe, but their beliefs aren't relevant to the issue of whether Sandstrom should pay for the consequences that her newspaper column set in motion. Moreover, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that whether people are required to pay for damage depends on whether they can form reasonable expectations about the consequences of their actions. Clearly then, (E) does not enable the conclusion to be properly inferred.

Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper column describing a strange natural phenomen

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

Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper column describing a strange natural phenomen

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