GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Jun 2018, 17:47

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 573
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2017, 22:52
1
Option D.

Try negation technique and it works fine.
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
Re: Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2018, 23:50
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Navinder wrote:
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.

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:
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:
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.

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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2018, 01:44
sunny91 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Navinder wrote:
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.

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:
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:
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.

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.

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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Posts: 72
Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2018, 09:35
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
nechets wrote:
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?

guerrero25 wrote:
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.

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.

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

Can we say that we can infer A. VeritasPrepKarishma can you please confirm if the understanding is correct ?
Sure its not an assumption.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2018, 23:00
ankushbagwale wrote:

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

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

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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: Of the adults who live in Idaho, approximately 5% own livestock. Of   [#permalink] 04 Feb 2018, 23:00

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by