Outsiders in any field often believe that they can bring in fresh, use

I am confused between A and C. They both sound the same. Can somebody explain?

ravi546, Let's deep-dive!

Argument states:

1) Outsiders in any field often believe that they can bring in fresh, useful solutions that have been overlooked by insiders.

Outsiders believe they CAN bring CUS (creative useful solutions).
2) But in fact, attempts at the creativity that are not grounded in relevant experience are futile.

However, the author discards this view.
3) Problems can be solved only by people who really understand them, and no one gains such an understanding without experience.

He states that to bring a novel solution, one MUST have understanding, which comes through experience in that field.

Focus on what the author states:

An experienced person is better suited to bring CUS (creative useful solutions) than an outsider ( NonExpPerson )

because an experienced person understands the sitaution at hand through experience.

Answer choice analysis:

Quote:
(A) The more experience a person has in a field, the more creatively that person can solve problems in the field.
It plays with probability, NOT certainty.
The argument suggests: An ExpPerson is better than a NonExpPerson.
Nowhere it states that higher the experience, more are the chances of creativity. - The proportionality is NEVER discussed.
Quote:
(B) Those people who are experienced in a field rarely overlook creative solutions.
Went TOO far. The ExpPerson almost ALWAYS comes up with CUS (creative useful solutions). - A strong claim, which we CANNOT substantiate from the passage.
Quote:
(C) Creative solutions in a field always come from people with experience in that field.
Aha! - Exactly what we thought!
- Do not worry about the usage of "always". If a thought is coherent with the passage. one MUST not discard it immediately. Let's keep it.
Quote:
(D) The experience required for effective problem-solving in a field does not vary depending on the field's complexity.
The perspective of whether the Experience varies with Field's complexity is OUT of scope.
Quote:
(E) Outsiders should be properly trained in a field before being given responsibility in that field.
The perspective of whether the Outsiders should be trained ... is OUT of scope.

From Manhattan Forum:

Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
No experience → No creative solutions
Solve a problem → True understanding
No experience → No true understanding

Answer Anticipation:
It's uncommon to see conditional logic in a Most Strongly Supported question (other than Principle Inference questions), but when it's there, it's there.

I'd skip the first statement since there are 3 "all" statements, so I'm expecting my inference to come from a combination there - stronger statements are more able to lead to inferences. I'll circle back if needed.

A lot of these statements have overlap that can't be combined (as an example, the first and third conditionals share a Sufficient condition, so they can't be chained). However, I can take the contrapositive of the third to combine it with the second:
Solve a problem → True understanding → Experience
and the contrapositive of that
No experience → Can't solve problem

I'm expecting one of those to be the correct answer.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Unwarranted comparison. The argument talks about having or not having experience; it doesn't compare more experience to less experience.

(B) Illegal negation of the first statement (also, a degree shift to "rarely", though we can shift down and still make an inference).

(C) Bingo. This answer is the contrapositive of the first conditional. I wasn't expecting this (I was expecting to need to combine two conditionals to get my answer), but I can infer this statement (Creative solutions → Experience). I'd check the others to be sure, though.

(D) Out of scope/unwarranted comparison. The conditionals do speak to all fields, but it's still possible that the required experience is different in each field, as long as that level of experience is reached.

(E) Out of scope. I'd dump this answer with "should", as normative language isn't a part of the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Some Inference questions will rely on a single statement to lead to the answer, even if you can make an inference based on a combination of statements.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.