Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten

Hi folks,

Let me add my two cents to the discussion around option B.

Basically, an assumption can play either of the two roles: first, bridge the logical gap in the argument and second, defend against weakeners.

In our case, option B plays the second role i.e. it defends the argument against a weakener. What is that weakener? The weakener is that people acquainted with staff of the agency were allocated disproportionate number of babies.

In other words, the argument is saying that the decisions are guided solely by the best interest of children (and not whether the person is a personal acquaintance of staff member). So, for example, if it is shown that 100 personal acquaintances and 50 other people for the adoption process and more than 2/3rd of the children were placed with personal acquaintances, it would show a disproportionate allocation and weaken the argument that the process did not favor personal acquaintances.

We know from the passage that 8 of the last 10 babies have been placed with personal acquaintances, therefore in order to defend our argument of impartiality, we need to assume that around 80% of the people who applied for adoption were personal acquaintances. This is what is communicated by option statement B.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

here is OE

(1) Identify the Question Type
The word "assumption" in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

(2) Deconstruct the Argument
According to the argument, the adoption agency has awarded the majority of its recent placements to parents who were personally acquainted with agency staff. The argument denies that this discrepancy is a sign of favoritism toward certain applicants, on the grounds that all ten placements were made with parents who surpassed the agency's (and the law's) criteria for adoption.

(3) State the Goal
On Find the Assumption questions, we're looking for something that the author must believe to be true in order to draw the given conclusion. The argument concludes that the agency did not engage in favoritism because all of the chosen parents surpassed the adoption criteria. However, the argument is also assuming that, among all well-qualified applicants, there was no favoritism toward individuals who were personally acquainted with the agency staff.

For example, suppose there were 100 fully qualified families and only 8 of them were personally acquainted with the staff; those 8 happened to be chosen, while only 2 of 92 qualified applicants who were not acquainted with staff were chosen. If that were true, it would undermine the author's claim that the agency did not show any favoritism. The author must be assuming that this is NOT the case.

(4) Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The argument is concerned only with whether a bias toward personally acquainted applicants is present or absent; it is not concerned with whether such a bias may, in fact, lead to placements that are more successful in the long term.

(B) CORRECT. For the argument to establish lack of bias toward certain applicants, the proportion of "previously acquainted" people among those applicants chosen for placement must reflect the corresponding proportion among all applicants. In other words, if eight out of the ten parents actually chosen were personally acquainted with the staff, then a similar majority of all applicants should have been similarly acquainted with the staff. Alternatively, use the negation test. If this statement is false, then the majority of qualified applicants were in fact unacquainted with agency staff – a situation in which the placement of eight of ten babies with personally acquainted applicants is a clear signal of bias. Since the negation of this statement defeats the argument, the original statement must be assumed.

(C) The argument is concerned only with determining whether a bias is demonstrated by the agency's ten most recent placements; it does not involve the idea of whether those placements were made at a typical rate.

(D) Applicants who do not meet the criteria are irrelevant; the argument is concerned with determining whether a bias exists among fully qualified applicants. Therefore, the relative proportion of unqualified candidates among all applicants does not affect the argument.

(E) Although all ten of the agency's most recent placements may indeed have been placed with parents who "far surpassed" the criteria, there is nothing in the argument to suggest that all successful applicants must substantially surpass those criteria (as opposed to simply meeting or fulfilling them).

pls help wid dis one i am finding it really difficult can any expert help on this

+1 B

Hi Archit

First of all, I am no expert.

Premise 1 – It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.
Premise 2 – decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

Conclusion – there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism

Assumption are made to connect the premise with conclusion

Now, if you think, option B fits well. It connects Premise 2 and the Conclusion. They have stated in the argument that the new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy and that they also knew 8 of them. In the end they have concluded that there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism only if the 8 selected parents were also surpassing the criteria.


_________________

I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.



Please help what is wrong with the negation above.
_________________

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.



I think by the negating process :
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process , WHICH means that the blue part of the premise will not be valid at all :

Hence, B is the answer ..

It took me about 10 mins to understand the question and the choices and why B is correct... I hope the real GMAT won't be as convoluted as this one!
Here's my understanding, hopefully it'll help others:

The adoption agency says that 8 out of the 10 last babies were placed with acquaintances. Now, the catch here is that we can say that 10 people applied, and 8 of those were acquaintances. Also, those 8 "exceeded the standards" of the adoption agency, hence it indeed server the children's best interest. Therefore the adoption agency cannot be accused of favoritism (they didn't have much choice anyway since 8/10 were acquaintances and ALSO surpassed the criteria!).

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

Bold Red : Is the premise on which conclusion mainly dependent.
Bold Blue : Is the conclusion.
Green : Is the extra information.

Bold red say 8/10 babies were given to parents who were acquainted by our staff.

Case 1 : 1 baby was given to each parent.
Case 2 : 8 babies were given to 1 parent(favoritism) and 2 babies to each 2 unacquainted parents.

Now validity of conclusion is hanging between case 1 and 2 if it is more towards case 1 then conclusion is valid, if it is more towards case 2 then representative will fail to prove accusation.

Option B here clearly clarifies that most of the qualified parents were acquainted by our staff.
And that's the assumption representative was holding in his/her statement.

Thus B is right.

I selected D initially but later I realized the gap in my reasoning and found B a valid option.

@@


Hi Chiranjeev,

Option B states = Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

The Conclusion of the rep is = However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children.

Prethinking Assumption = To somehow state that that people who were given babies were NOT personally acquainted with the staff.
Option B states the complete opposite isn't it? It states that most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process. This shows favouritism isn't it?

According to me assumption should be = Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the representative's argument depends?

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

How is answer 'C' wrong and 'B' right.
My logic - If the accusation on the author of favouritism is based on baby deliveries prior to the last 10 deliveries then the author's claim that the last 10 deliveries far surpassed the criteria becomes irrelevant. And the conclusion breaks up. As it is possible that the author was partial in deliveries before the last 10 deliveries.So as per me, author must assume that the accusation is based on the last 10 baby deliveries only.

Considering 'B', it is irrelevant whether the people knew the adoption personnel before beginning of application process or not. As in both the cases they could have equally influenced the personnel. So assuming or not assuming 'B' will not have an impact on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how is this line of thinking wrong?

Hi,
C is wrong because it's out of the scope of the assumption, as the number of deliveries is irrelevant to the argument. Remember the assumption is a bridge from the premise to the conclusion. The premise is that successful adopters were acquaintances, hence it may seem favoritism is perpetuated. However, the author tries to prove this as not true. Therefore the main assumption was that the premise of being acquainted with adopters was valid, otherwise, there is no need to prove anything. Hence the reason why B is correct.

As an addendum, since your mistake stems from choosing an out of scope answer, I recommend you consider such CR questions as you will a DS question in quant. In CR, the core structure of the argument (i.e conclusion and reasoning behind the premises) are usually enough to answer the questions, especially in inference, assumptions and bold faced questions. For the strengthening and weakening questions, they are also enough but may require additional evidence to make an answer correct.

I hope I am being clear. I believe the skills for verbal and quant are pretty complimentary. Once you see that connection you will become more confident and that should carry over in your overall score. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Best,

Hello,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. You are right that out of scope points cannot be considered.

But I don't see 'c' as out of scope. The representative says that the last 10 parents far exceeded the adoption criteria. So we need to know whether the accusation is based on those 10 adoptions only or adoptions occuring previously as well. Let us say, 50 adoptions occured, in that case we don't know if there were any partiality on the previous 40 as well. So, if we know that the scope of adoptions is limited to only 10 children, we duly know that they were based on proper adoption policy. So, this strengthens the representative's point.

Considering the option 'B', it is itself based on an assumption that there is a correlation between prior relationship and partiality i.e. if someone is friends with someone, he or she has to be partial towards the other one. So an assumption should not be based on another assumption. Also, as per option 'B' if parents are acquainted with staff before the adoption process, chances of partiality is less compared to they becoming friends during the process. Though in real life it is correct, but as per GMAT this is still an assumption. so we have 2 assumptions ingrained in option 'B'.

What do you think about this?

Thanks,

Hi Passivebit,

I understand your point. However, I think you are may be extrapolating too much from the question and this is where it is easy to fall into the out of scope trap. First, option C is out of scope because it's dealing with "during" the process. This is unnecessary, acquaintances could be at any time, and logically as you pointed out acquaintances in this context is probably people known before the process. Second, the 8/10 number is just confirming the assumption i.e that it's true that most adopters were acquaintances. Thirdly, my observation from GMAT questions is that they often mirror the real world albeit in a limited scope and this applies to all parts of the exam including quant, so my 2 cents is when you are faced with a tough question, go for the real life logic after you have exploited all options. Therefore as you rightly suggest we may have 2 assumptions in option B, if this is true, then option B is most likely correct as we are looking for an assumption.

Also when you have to think of scenarios for an option like you described above for option C, that option will often be wrong, especially on inferences, assumption and bold faced CRs. I am of the opinion that the answer is usually straight forward and directly embedded in the question. You just have to match the prompt with the options. Finally, remember that you have less than 2 minutes to solve this problem and I believe the problems are written to be solved within that time frame albeit in a convoluted way sometimes.

Back to the question, on a general level, the main reason why the author is writing is to argue that the agency was impartial, and the assumption is that people think the agency is because 8/10 of successful adopters were acquaintances. The author is simply writing back to say those 8 acquaintances, along with the other 2 adopters surpassed the legal requirement and that the agency decision has the best interests of the children in mind. Let's see if we can parse the prompt again.

It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process (Assumption). However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism (Argument); our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children (Strengthener 1). Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy. (Strengthener 2).

I hope this was helpful, I understand it's a bit complicated, however, the assumption is direct and the options are full of trap, hence why this is a 700 level question I think. Anecdotally, I have score 51 in my GMATprep verbal practice and have come across a question of the same structure and similar answer, so I believe it may be helpful to really understand it.

Lastly, I commend your efforts to try to grasp the reasoning behind an answer. Best of luck, let me know if I can help again and thanks for the Kudo!

Best
Rulingbear

Hi B is the answer let me explain

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.


A not correct
A talks about the plan that the agency carried out is not successful we are not concerned about the plan we are concerned about bias that the agency says it does not show.

B on the other hand is the correct answer of all parents who were successful most of them were acquainted with the agency shows that the agency does not have bias as it gives babies to only those parents who have surpassed criteria.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the representative's argument depends?

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

Conclusion:
In placing 8 of the last 10 babies with friends of agency staff, the agency did not show favoritism.

An assumption is a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.
Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer choice is negated, the conclusion above will be invalidated.

B, negated:
Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were NOT personally acquainted with agency staff.
Here, most of the qualified parental candidates were NOT friends of the staff.
Implication:
Most of the babies should have been placed with these non-friends, invalidating the conclusion that the agency did not show favoritism when placing most of the babies with friends of the staff.
Since the negation of B invalidates the conclusion, B is an assumption: a statement that must be true for the conclusion to hold.


_________________

I think option B, the correct one, trying to convey that parents who were known to the staff were the same who surpassed the adoption criteria, and therefore, agency did not show any bias but chose the best parents without favoritism. It is co-incidental that acquainted parents were surpasser of the adoption criteria.
_________________

It took me a long time to understand why B is correct, explaining the answer choice below for anyone who might benefit from it.

The argument is pretty easy and straightforward to understand, its the answer choices that are confusing.

Others have already mentioned why the rest of the answer choices are incorrect let's move onto why B is correct.

if we read B carefully it means to say eg 10 parents had applied for adoption. Of these MOST who cleared the criteria were ALREADY acquainted with the agency. so it's not like they favored them and hence they were chosen for adoption RATHER the only viable options available were the ones who the agency was acquainted with!!

Can someone please explain how B is correct? How B is showing that there is no biases.
If those parents were personally acquainted with agency staff, then that means they were in touch and it can be said that this was the reason the baby was placed with them

Option B is an assumption on which the representative's argument depends because it defends against the possibility that the agency is showing favoritism towards parents who are personally acquainted with agency staff. The assumption states that most of the prospective parents who substantially surpassed the adoption criteria were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process. This assumption helps to explain why a higher percentage of babies were placed with parents who were personally acquainted with agency staff, without suggesting any bias or favoritism on the part of the agency.

In other words, the assumption in option B provides an alternative explanation for why a higher percentage of babies were placed with parents who were personally acquainted with agency staff, which is that the majority of the most qualified prospective parents happened to be personally acquainted with agency staff. By assuming this, the representative can argue that the agency's decisions are based solely on the best interests of the children, rather than being influenced by any favoritism towards parents who are personally acquainted with agency staff.