Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR

Done dips1122
https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-recent-stu ... l#p2421166
_________________

Need help in understanding the reasoning in this question:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-neighborho ... 12203.html

Can you please help?

VeritasKarishma

I need your help with this question- https://gmatclub.com/forum/lawyer-a-bod ... 10278.html

Also, could you please tell the approach how to evaluate options D and E

hi,

A leads to B and we need to weaken it. If any answer options says that "Sometimes" B leads to A, then is this option weakening the argument? What if in most of the cases A is leading to B?

Here you go dips1122:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-neighborho ... l#p2430588
_________________

Hey Aviral1995! Here you go:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/lawyer-a-bod ... 10278.html
_________________

It all depends on context of the question. Give me the link of the question you have in mind.
_________________

Hi Karishma,

here is the link : https://gmatclub.com/forum/new-research ... 10909.html

I hope this question falls under my query.

Hey nkhl.goyal,

Check the link. Note that knowing that A and B co-exist in some cases, you are hypothesising that A leads to B. If I say that sometimes B leads to A, it weakens the cause effect relation you are trying to establish. If you can prove that in most cases A leads to B, you can strengthen the relation you are trying to establish. Every additional data can impact the strength of your argument.
_________________

VeritasKarishma , what is your opinion about Advanced GMAT Official for not only CR but also RC and SC? Are the questions harder than the original GMAT or of the same level for someone aiming 700+?

ann1111 - The proportion of questions that are 700+ level would be greater in the Advanced pack but the biggest plus is that they are additional official questions. High quality high level Verbal questions for practice are not that easy to come by.
_________________

Hi mam
Can u help with this

https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-true-o ... l#p2447513

Posted from my mobile device

vanam52923: Here you go
https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-true-o ... l#p2448217
_________________

Why is c wrong ?

Negating c tells me that not all children can become equally fit

If not all children can be made equally fit, bringing the program from Europe to America is going to have different results from kid to kid

Hence i thought, negating c destroyed the argument because know bringing the program is not a sure shot way to ensure fitness as fitness will fluctuate from child to child

hence i chose C

Please let me know your thoughts !

.............................

OA : B

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources.

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children.

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program.

Posted from my mobile device

Question - what is the conclusion of this agreement ?

Is it that "mathematicians clearly form a tightly knit community"

My understanding is it is one word "clearly" that makes this statement the conclusion of this argument but wanted to know your thoughts


...............


Mathematician: Recently, Zubin Ghosh made headlines when he was recognized to have solved the Hilbert Conjecture. Ghosh posted his work on the internet,rather than submitting it to established journals. In fact, he has no job, let alone a university position; he lives alone and has refused all acclaim. In reporting on Ghosh, the press unfortunately has reinforced the popular view that mathematicians are antisocial loners. But mathematicians clearly form a tightly knit community,frequently collaborating on important efforts; indeed, teams of researchers are working together to extend Ghosh's findings.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?

(A) The first is an observation the author makes to illustrate a social pattern; the second is a generalization of that pattern.

(B) The first is evidence in favor of the popular view expressed in the argument;the second is a brief restatement of that view.

(C) The first is a specific example of a generalization that the author contradicts;the second is a reiteration of that generalization.

(D) The first is a specific counterexample to a generalization that the author asserts;the second is that generalization.

(E) The first is a judgment that counters the primary assertion expressed in the argument; the second is a circumstance on which that judgment is based

Posted from my mobile device

Actually Brian has already taken option (C) in detail here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-europe-sc ... l#p2446133

Check it out.
_________________

Even without "clearly", the conclusion will be "mathematicians form a tightly knit community".
Look, the conclusion is the reason the author wrote the argument. If you need to sum everything that the author wants to say in one sentence, the conclusion will be that sentence.

An example of Zubin Ghosh is given and then the other view is given - that mathematicians are antisocial loners
Then the author gives his view - mathematicians clearly form a tightly knit community
and then gives his reasoning - frequently collaborating on important efforts; indeed, teams of researchers are working together to extend Ghosh's findings.

His view is why he wrote the argument.
_________________

Hi Karishma

Thank you so much for responding -- Just a follow-up

If I were to speak in daily conversation with an analogy

Analogy to arguement --


IT professionals are loners. In fact, a study showed they only have 10 friends

But they live in tight knit communities, playing sports and eating together everyday

-- I don't think it would be accurate to say the bold was the conclusion of the argement

I would think the conclusion is unwritten actually .. The conclusion I think should be..

Unwritten conclusion : The claim that "IT professionals are loners" is false

Premise : the bold and everything there- after are actually premises to this unwritten conclusion

Just trying to reconcile with language spoken everyday

In the argument you have given, the author seems to be in two minds and doesn't seem to have a point to make. That is not how CR arguments are.

In the original argument, the author clearly says "the press unfortunately has reinforced the popular view that mathematicians are antisocial loners".
The author says that that is the popular view, but his view opposes it.
_________________