Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of

Question

Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of the adults who live in Idaho and indicated support for a recently proposed bill via an online poll, however, approximately 12% own livestock. Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock.

The conclusion drawn above is based on the assumption that _____________.

(A) Adults who own livestock were less likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock.

(B) The number of adults who indicated support for the bill via the online poll was greater than the number of adults who own livestock.

(C) At least some of the adults in Idaho who own livestock responded more than once to the online poll.

(D) Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.

(E) Adults who own livestock in Idaho are more likely to indicate support for proposed legislation than are adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock.

D. Note the gap in logic here between the premises and the conclusion - the premise is that a a higher percentage of livestock owners supported this bill than their normal proportion of the population. The conclusion then states that livestock owners are more likely to be affected than others - a bit of a leap, as it infers the reason they vote this way is that they're more directly affected and not, for example, just more ideologically in support of a law that would affect everyone (say, higher speed limits or decreased taxes). Before you even get to the answer choices you should be skeptical.

If you use the Assumption Negation Technique on answer choice D, it becomes "Adults who indicate support are NOT more likely to be affected than those who do not indicate support" - which blows open that gap in logic that the support must have been directly because they were personally affected. Answer choice D is, therefore, correct.

If you use the Assumption Negation Technique on answer choice D, it becomes "Adults who indicate support are NOT more likely to be affected than those who do not indicate support" - which blows open that gap in logic that the support must have been directly because they were personally affected. Answer choice D is, therefore, correct.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Please be careful when you give the OA. The actual OA given in the question bank is (D). And here is the OE given:

D. Note the gap in logic here between the premises and the conclusion - the premise is that a a higher percentage of livestock owners supported this bill than their normal proportion of the population. The conclusion then states that livestock owners are more likely to be affected than others - a bit of a leap, as it infers the reason they vote this way is that they're more directly affected and not, for example, just more ideologically in support of a law that would affect everyone (say, higher speed limits or decreased taxes). Before you even get to the answer choices you should be skeptical.

If you use the Assumption Negation Technique on answer choice D, it becomes "Adults who indicate support are NOT more likely to be affected than those who do not indicate support" - which blows open that gap in logic that the support must have been directly because they were personally affected. Answer choice D is, therefore, correct.

If you use the Assumption Negation Technique on answer choice D, it becomes "Adults who indicate support are NOT more likely to be affected than those who do not indicate support" - which blows open that gap in logic that the support must have been directly because they were personally affected. Answer choice D is, therefore, correct.

keats · Answer

If necessary, make an analogy -- same logic, but with more intuitive subject material -- to help you understand.
E.g.,
55% of people in California support the legalization of marijuana. However, 80% of people under 30 support the legalization of marijuana. Therefore, people under 30 must be more likely to smoke marijuana than older people.
--> This is effectively the same argument, but it might be easier to think about. Here, it should be clear that there's a huge jump between (a) supporting the legalization of marijuana, and (b) actually wanting to smoke it.

Taken from Ron, Manhattan Instructor!

dentobizz · Answer

Thanks a lot Karishma for clarifying . I couldn't understand how could E be correct , now your explanation clears the confusion.

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, (E) is out of scope. There is no question of whether it is a choice to consider. The argument is not comparing people with livestock in Idaho to people with livestock in other places. So there is no need to analyze option (E) much.

nechets · Answer

Guys, what is going on with answer (A)? I'm having a hard time to understand it. In the top of my mind, I'm thinking that if the adults who own livestock are less likely to support via the online poll, but there is a sudden increase in the poll results, then the argument is reinforced.

Even rephrasing a negation technique would make this answer compelling:

(a)  Adults who own livestock were  MORE  likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock  - Then, the poll results are not so surprising.

Why this wouldn't be the right way to think about it?

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:
5% adults own livestock. (Say, 2000 people live in Idaho and 100 own livestock) 
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock. (Say, 100 supported and 12 of these own livestock as against the expected 5.)

Conclusion:
Livestock owners are more affected by the bill.

What is the assumption here? The premises do not talk about being affected by the bill. They only give numbers on the demography of people who supported the bill. We are concluding from these numbers that livestock owners are more affected by the bill. i.e. we are assuming that people will participate in supporting a bill if they are affected by it. Hence (D) is your answer.

(A) says livestock owners are less likely to indicate support. That is not an assumption in our argument at all.

avnikamalhotra · Answer

Hey,

why the answer can't be option C here?

KarishmaB · Answer

An assumption is a missing necessary premise. It is required for the conclusion to hold.

The conclusion is "adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock."
We arrived at this conclusion because more of them voted. 
So we are assuming that people who get affected are the ones who vote.

There needn't be adults who have responded more than once. There could be (though it would probably not be allowed) but it is not necessary for the conclusion. It is certainly possible that more livestock owners supported the poll.
Say, if there are 1000 total people and 50 livestock owners, 100 supported the poll of which 12 were livestock owners. It doesn't mean that some livestock owners must have voted twice.

(C) is not an assumption.

abhimahna · Answer

Two important words to answer this question. "Support" and "affected".

Conclusion is saying affected and premise is saying supported. Hence, there must be a link between the two. D clearly states the same. Hence the correct answer.

Navinder · Answer

Hi  VeritasPrepKarishma ,
In choice D, the % of people who did not own livestock and still supported the bill are still 88%. So, how come this is an assumption that people who are supporting it are influenced by it.

And in choice A, you expected 5 people who own livestock to vote. Isn't that an assumption. Thanks.

KarishmaB · Answer

The point is that since the representation of livestock owners is higher than expected (12% instead of the expected 5%) among the voters, the argument is concluding that the bill affects the livestock owners more. 
All we have to do is link up the premises with the conclusion.

The premises and the conclusion are missing an important link. The correct assumption tells you that adults who indicate support are more likely to be affected by the bill. You need to assume this to arrive at the conclusion.

Look at the flow:

Premises:
5% adults own livestock. 
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock.

Conclusion: 
Livestock owners are  more affected  by the bill.

Now add the conclusion in the flow:

Premises:
5% adults own livestock. 
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock. 
Adults who indicate support for legislation are  more likely to be affected  by that legislation

Conclusion:
Livestock owners are  more affected  by the bill.

Did we plug in a gap? Yes, we did.

I am not assuming that 5% people should support the bill. It is what the demographics would have us believe. If everybody is neutral to the bill, ideally, the demographics of the people supporting the bill would be the same as the demographics of the population.

KrishnakumarKA1 · Answer

A)Adults who own livestock were less likely to indicate support via the online poll than were adults who do not own livestock.(  Wrong Answer :  This kind of comparison is not done in the argument.)

B)The number of adults who indicated support for the bill via the online poll was greater than the number of adults who own livestock.(  Wrong Answer  : This type of comparison is nowhere present in the argument.)

C)At least some of the adults in Idaho who own livestock responded more than once to the online poll.(  Wrong Answer  : This option is irrelevant to the argument at hand.)

D)Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.(  Right Answer  : The premise part has a new piece of information in the form of ‘support for a recently proposed bill’ and the conclusion has the new element in the form of, ‘affected by the proposed legislation’.We need to identify a option that bridges this gap. This option neatly fits the bill.)

E)Adults who own livestock in Idaho are more likely to indicate support for proposed legislation than are adults who own livestock in a state with less livestock.(  Wrong Answer  : This option puts forward a comparison which irrelevant to the argument at hand)

sunny91 · Answer

hi  VeritasPrepKarishma ,
Despite you repeatedly explaining the argument,, I am still finding difficult to conclude the assumption.

Premises:
5% adults own livestock. (Say, 2000 people live in Idaho and 100 own livestock) 
12% of those who indicated support to the bill own livestock. (Say, 100 supported and 12 of these own livestock as against the expected 5.). So, obviously, we can see that among the livestock owners, a few supported the bill.

Conclusion:
Livestock owners are more affected by the bill.

Assumption- Adults who indicate support for legislation are more likely to be affected by that legislation than are adults who do not indicate support.

But, I fail to understand that in the conclusion we are talking about all the livestock owners(100). In the assumption, we are talking about 12 of the livestock owners who supported the bill. So, how can we draw the picture that since 12 livestock owners who supported the act, all the livestock owners will be effected as well.

KarishmaB · Answer

Here is the point: Say a city has 100 people - 10 doctors, 10 artists and 80 bloggers
Say there is a bill introduced on farming and 50% people support it. What would be the expected participation pattern? 5 doctor, 5 artist and 40 bloggers, right? The bill has nothing to do with any of the 3 professions and hence there is no reason to suspect that one profession will support it more or less.

Now say instead a bill on medical malpractices is introduced. Wouldn't we expect more doctors to take a stand on it depending on how it affects them? It is possible that if 50% people support it, 8 doctors support and rest 42 are made up of artists and bloggers. Or possibly no doctor supports (if they don't like it) and all 50 are made up of artists and bloggers.

This question makes a similar argument. Since 5% of the population owns livestock, you expect to see 5% of supporters to be livestock owners in case the bill has nothing to do with livestock. But if 12 of the livestock owners took a stand on it, it is more probable that it affects them in some way. 
The assumption in our argument is that more people will stand up for a bill if it affects them.

ankushbagwale · Answer

---------XX_---------

Can we say that we can infer A.  VeritasPrepKarishma  can you please confirm if the understanding is correct ?
Sure its not an assumption.

KarishmaB · Answer

No, you cannot infer (A) from the argument. Normally you would expect that two groups of people are equally likely to support a bill which doesn't affect them. We cannot infer that people with livestock were less likely to indicate support than people without livestock.

assaad · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

D. Note the gap in logic here between the premises and the conclusion - the premise is that a a higher percentage of livestock owners supported this bill than their normal proportion of the population. The conclusion then states that livestock owners are more likely to be affected than others - a bit of a leap, as it infers the reason they vote this way is that they're more directly affected and not, for example, just more ideologically in support of a law that would affect everyone (say, higher speed limits or decreased taxes). Before you even get to the answer choices you should be skeptical.

If you use the Assumption Negation Technique on answer choice D, it becomes "Adults who indicate support are NOT more likely to be affected than those who do not indicate support" - which blows open that gap in logic that the support must have been directly because they were personally affected. Answer choice D is, therefore, correct.

If you use the Assumption Negation Technique on answer choice D, it becomes "Adults who indicate support are NOT more likely to be affected than those who do not indicate support" - which blows open that gap in logic that the support must have been directly because they were personally affected. Answer choice D is, therefore, correct.

level 650-700

newyork2012 · Answer

straight d /// didn't even read E

RK007 · Answer

This is what I was looking for! Thanks a lot VeritasKarishma

Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of

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

Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of

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