KarishmaB
Sajjad1994
An amusement park has enough space on its ground to add one more roller coaster. It is considering two options: a roller coaster based on popular action film and one based on a popular children’s television series. However, studies show that only young children are fans of the television series, so the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.
Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the argument, and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would provide significant logical support for the required assumption.
I think the question is fine.
Premise: Studies show that only young children are fans of the television series,
Conclusion: the amusement park will be better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.
There is a gap here. The premise tells us that only young children are fans of tv series, not adults. We are concluding from that that the park will be better served by basing it on the movie. Why? Why is it not ok to cater to young children through the roller coaster? The roller coaster could very well cater to young children successfully. What is the problem?
The assumption here is that the roller coaster will be predominantly considered by adults, not young children. Only then does it make sense that the park will be better served by not basing it on the tv series.
Assumption: Most of the people who will consider riding on the new roller coaster are not young children."Most" means the "key demography" is not young children, that's all.
Something that supports the assumption: Most young children are not tall enough to ride on roller coasters
(and hence they will not consider riding it)
Hi [url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=KarishmaB]
KarishmaBPlease help me out here.
I still don't see why
''MOST'' is REQUIRED, and without it the argument won't work. Below is my reasoning:
Premise: Studies show that
ONLY young children are fans of the television series,
Conclusion: the amusement park will be
better served by building the roller coaster based on the action film.
Television series has ONLY young children FANS = 10 million
Popular action film = Both adults and children are Fans(Young children = 10 million, Adults = 9 million)
If that is the case then arguments still works fine, right? Negating the assumption doesn't even weaken the argument, because amusement park is still
''better served'' with more audience.
I have never seen a necessary assumption using such strong language.
Rather a necessary assumption will say:
''some adullts will consider going to the ride''. If we negate this statement, argument won't work.