In the Business program at a university, all candidates for the MBA in

I would go with C. The candidate could have been in the program before 1990 and still take Macroeconomics. He could also have taken Macroeconomics between 1990 to 1995. Hence C is the possible answer.

In the Business program at a university, all candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1990 took a seminar on Microeconomics, and all candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1994 took a seminar on Applied Economics.

In light of the part I have made bold I still feel E should be the answer

If a student in the Business program described above took a seminar on Microeconomics but did not take a seminar on Applied Economics, which of the following must be true?
In C
C. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1995.

There is no information given in the argument about requirements of an international MBA student prior 1990. Hence the must criteria will not be satisfied by C

No man, you're still mixing it up. The must criteria are completely satisfied by C. The must criteria is NOT satisified by E. If the candidate in question entered the program prior to 1990, he could have chosen to take Microecon and chosen not to take Applied.

If he didn't take the Applied seminar, then he could not have entered the program after 1994. Period.

If he took the Micro seminar, that does not automatically mean he took it because it was required. Look at it like this:



Entered program in:

1995 - He takes Micro and Applied because they are both required.
1993 - He takes Micro because it's required. He doesn't take Applied because it doesn't interest him.
1985 - He takes Micro because it interests him. He doesn't take Applied because it doesn't interest him.

Ok, this is my last stab at this.

Imagine this were the question:



In the Business program at a university, all candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1990 took a seminar on Microeconomics.

If a student in the Business program described above took a seminar on Microeconomics, which of the following must be true?

A. The student entered the Business program prior to 1990.

B. The student entered the Business program after 1990.

C. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1990.

D. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program after 1990.

E. None of the above.


If you did not answer E, you are wrong. Just because you take a course in Microecon does not mean you entered the program after 1990. We know that if you entered the program after 1990, you must have taken a course in Microecon. We DO NOT know if the reverse is true. A student who took microecon could have entered the program at any time. All we know is that, if he had entered the program after 1990, he would have been required to take microecon. If he had entered prior to 1990, he would not have been required to take microecon, but he could have taken it if he had wanted to.

I'll try and come up with an analogous question:

In the NFL Hall of Fame, since 1995 all candidates for induction had played in the league for a minimum of 7 seasons. Since 2000, all candidates had played in the league for a minimum of 9 seasons.

A Hall of Fame inductee has been selected at random. He played in the NFL for 8 seasons. Which of the following must be true?

(A) He became a candidate for induction to the Hall of Fame before 1995.
(B) He became a candidate for induction to the Hall of Fame after 1995.
(C) He became a candidate for induction to the Hall of Fame before 2000.
(D) He became a candidate for induction to the Hall of Fame after 2000.
(E) He became a candidate for induction to the Hall of Fame after 1995 but before 2000.


The answer is C. All we know is that the guy did not play in the league for more than 9 seasons. Therefore he could not have been up for indiction after 2000, because all the candidates that went up for induction after 2000 had played for at least 9 seasons. Therefore he must have been a candidate for induction before 2000.

Do we definitively know whether he was a candidate for induction after 1995? No. Just because he played more than 7 seasons in the league does not mean he was inducted after 1995. We know that all the players who actually WERE candidates after 1995 played more than 7 seasons, but it is also very possible that prior to 1995 there could have been players inducted who had played for at least 7 years. So we don't know anything about whether he was inducted prior to 1995.


As a last word, it's like the "All squares are rectangles. A randomly selected quadrilateral is a rectangle. Is it a square?" question.

Alright that's my last stab at it yall. Good luck.

This required condition is valid for both C and E:
"If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business".

And we know for sure that "ALL" students after 1994 took Applied Economics. Thus, this student must have entered the program before 1995. Thus, "prior to 1995" is good.

Now, the question is whether he entered the program after 1990 or prior to 1990. The answer is, "We don't know".

Consider this:
"All candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1990 took a seminar on Microeconomics"
This statement implies that 100% of the students after 1990 took microeconomics.

But,
Nowhere it is mentioned that NO student (0 student) took microeconomics seminar prior to 1990. May be 1% candidate(some students) took seminar on microeconomics even prior to 1990 AND our friend in the question is 1 of those 1% students.

Ans: "C"

The OA should be (C).

(A): This option does not mention whether the student is an MBA candidate or not. May or may not be true. Incorrect.
(B): Same as (A). Incorrect.
(C): CORRECT. If the student was an MBA candidate and did not take a seminar on Applied Economics, then it is certain that he or she entered the program before 1994, because all candidates entering the program after 1994 took the seminar on Applied Economics. However, this does not mean that the candidate entered the program between 1990 and 1994, because although all candidates who entered after 1990 took the seminar on Microeconomics, it is not true that all candidates who entered the course prior to 1990 did not take the seminar in Microeconomics. This option covers this possibility and is the best answer.
(D): The student could have entered the program anytime prior to 1994. Not accounting for 1991-1994 has no basis. Incorrect.
(E): Misleading and incorrect. See the explanation for option (C) above.

The crucial factors here are; 1. Students should join a business program in MBA International Business. 2. Prior to 1991, there is no hint that microeconomics was necessary. Prior to 1995 does not mean, it is after 1991.

A. The student entered the Business program prior to 1995…. It could be even before 1991, in which case, he need not have taken even microeconomics. Wrong
B. The student entered the Business program after 1990 and prior to 1995. …. It is just not Business Program; it should be Business Program of MBA in International Business. Wrong
C. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1994…. Prior to 1994 does not imply, the joining was after 1991. So C is gone
D. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1991….. Prior to 1991, there was no need for microeconomics seminar
E. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program after 1990 and prior to 1995. --- Precisely fixes the joining between the two ends; correct choice.

Some of the posts above seem not to capture the logic of the question. The only relevant fact is this: if someone joined the International Business program after 1994, they took Applied Economics. So (taking the contrapositive) if someone didn't take Applied Economics, they didn't join the International Business program after 1994. So the answer is C (though C needs to say 'prior to 1995', and not 'prior to 1994' to be perfectly correct).

All of the detail about Microeconomics is simply irrelevant. It is certainly possible that some International Business students took Microeconomics prior to 1990, which is why E is wrong.

Ian wrote



But the question asks:



Can we see miss the reference to Microeconomics in the question? On the contrary, the question is not mentioning anything Applied Economics. I think AE is not part of the concern of the question, while ME is very much

Let us look t the temporal order.

Before 1991: neither ME nor AE
1991 to 1194: only ME
1995 onwards: Only AE

Now where can you fix a person with ME? You can’t anywhere other than between 1990 and 1995. That is the reason E prevails.

C. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1994.
This simply means that if a student took MBA in International business, he should have entered before 1994. Does that imply that the University stopped its program of MBA in International Business after 1994?

C has too many logical holes, while E can be sustaned.

No, the answer is not E, and the information about Microeconomics is indeed irrelevant. There is nothing at all stated in the question about what courses people took prior to 1991. Maybe they took Microeconomics, maybe they took Applied Ecomonics, maybe they took both or maybe they took neither. You seem to be assuming they took neither - that information is not found anywhere in the question.

The questions tempts us into a common fallacy given in E.

Entered after 1990 => Took Microeconomics

but

Took Microeconomics does not => Entered after 1990

The general principle is, A=> B does not mean B=> A

That is the trap. If you see through this, answer C will be obvious.

Hi all,

I think pretty interesting discussion has gone in this thread, with some of the members making really elaborate and explanatory posts.

However, I think the issue at hand can be simplified further. So, let me try my bit at it.

Clearly, the only confusion is between option C and option E. The only difference between option C and option E is that option E makes the entering year later than 1990.

So, let's just focus on this part:

Let's see the relevant part of the passage:
"In the Business program at a university, all candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1990 took a seminar on Microeconomics"

and the relevant part of question stem
"If a student in the Business program described above took a seminar on Microeconomics"

So, the passage says that all students (or candidates, let's use the same terms) who entered program after 1990 took Microeconomics

Now consider, if I, during my MBA, took a course on Microeconomics; can you say that I entered the program only after 1990?

If your answer to this question is yes, then my question is that what makes you think that I could not have entered before 1990? Clearly, all students who entered after 1990 had to take Microeconomics but it doesn't mean that students who entered before 1990 could not take Microeconomics.

If students who entered before 1990 could indeed take Microeconomics, then I could be one of those students. Isn't it?

Let's consider an analogy here:
All students who entered the school in a red dress got a tight slap on their face.

Now, if I say that I got a tight slap on my face, can you say that I wore a red dress to the school?

No, you can't say that. Because a red dress ensures a slap but the school authorities could, at their whims and fancies, slap anyone in any dress We are only given that a person in red dress won't be spared but we can't say about others.

Similarly, if a person took Microeconomics (a slap), we can't say he entered after 1990 (wore a red dress).

Hope this helps

If anyone has doubts, please feel free to ask.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Dear Chiranjeev;

I am a E-Gmat Student. I appreciate the way you have explained the above example. I still have a doubt in this question. Student joining prior to 1990 can have both option to attend either seminar on MicroEconomics or Applied Economics. hence a student may have attended applied economics also if he is joining prior to 1990. The question asks which "must be true". Choice E is the condition which is must be true as it satisfies the required conditions in all cases.

Your justification for choice C is acceptable, but it is not always true, whereas choice E is always true.

Please explain and give one condition where E is not the choice for "must be true"

Many Thanks in Advance.

Regards,
Amit

I'll reiterate Chiranjeev's explanation with an example.

This is Conditional Logic. If X happens, Y happens.

Consider a simpler condition: If it is cold, I will wear a sweater.
The inverse of this statement is the negation of both clauses: If it is not cold, I will not wear a sweater.
The converse reverses the order of the clauses: If I wear a sweater, it is cold.
The contrapositive both negates and reverses: If I will not wear a sweater, it is not cold.

Under the rules of classical logic, if a statement is true, its contrapositive must also be true. The statement’s negation and converse, however, are NOT necessarily true. For the sweater example, this means the following:

Statement -> If it is cold, I will wear a sweater. TRUE
Inverse -> If it is not cold, I will not wear a sweater. TRUE OR FALSE – I may wear a sweater even if it is not cold.
Converse -> If I will wear a sweater, it is cold. TRUE OR FALSE. I may wear a sweater even if it is warm.
Contrapositive -> If I will not wear a sweater, it is not cold. TRUE. If it were cold, I would wear a sweater. Since I won’t wear a sweater, it must not be cold.

Initially, I was also tied between C & E. Then, I read the above logic and it has helped solving "Must be True" Q's correctly till date.

Let's come back to the Question.

Argument:
Condition 1 => In the Business program at a university, all candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1990 took a seminar on Microeconomics, and
Condition 2 => All candidates for the MBA in International Business who entered the program after 1994 took a seminar on Applied Economics.

Contrapositive of Condition 2 => If a student did not attend a seminar on Applied Economics, then he must not have entered after 1994. TRUE
Converse of Condition 1 => If a students attends a seminar on Microeconomics, then he must have entered after 1990. FALSE

Now C & E both contains the Contrapositive logic but NOTE E contains some additional info which is CONVERSE of Condition 1.

E : If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program after 1990 and prior to 1995.

Hence, E may be TRUE OR FALSE. The words are confusing but once you practice using this logic, it'll become easy. Hope it helps.

This is the original link
https://www.knewton.com/blog/gmat/2010/12/01/how-to-use-formal-logic-gmat-critical-reasoning/

Gave a Kaplan test, and this question was there in the test.
The OA provided is 'C' and not 'E'.

Here's the explanation :

Answer Choice (C) matches our prediction. It suggests that if the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1995. This is supported by the stimulus and is the correct choice.

Choice (A) says the student entered the Business program prior to 1995. We don't know the criteria for the "Business program" in general. It is not mentioned in the statement, so it is outside of the scope.

Choice (B) states the student entered the Business program after 1990 and prior to 1995. This is too broad to be the right answer and is not the specific group for which we are given information. It is not mentioned in the statement, so it is outside of the scope.

Choice (D) indicates that if the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1991. This does not have to be true. It may or may not be true. It is possible that a student took either one of these classes prior to the time stipulated, so we do not know when this student had to enter the program. It is not mentioned in the statement, so it is outside of the scope.

Choice (E) mentions that if the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program after 1990 and prior to 1995. Once again, this does not have to be true because there is not a stipulation on exactly when Microeconomics had to be taken. It is not mentioned in the statement, so it is outside of the scope.

Responding to a pm:

What we know from the argument:
- All candidates who entered the program after 1990 took a seminar on Microeconomics (we don't know anything about candidates who entered in 1990 or before. Just that those that entered after 1990 definitely took Microeconomics. So if someone entered after 1990, we can say that he took a seminar on Microeconomics. But if we know that someone took a seminar on Microeconomics, can we say that he entered after 1990? No. Someone could have taken this seminar in 1990 or before too.)

- All candidates who entered the program after 1994 took a seminar on Applied Economics (same logic as above)

A student took Microeconomics seminar but not Applied Economics.

C. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program prior to 1994.
Had he entered in 1994 or after, he would have taken the Applied Economics seminar. He did not take it means he entered prior to 1995. The option needs to say 1995, not 1994. So I don't like this as the answer.

E. If the student was a candidate for the MBA in International Business, then the student entered the program after 1990 and prior to 1995.
Can we say that he entered after 1990? Not necessary, right? As we discussed above, if someone took the Microeconomics seminar, it doesn't mean he entered after 1990. He could have entered at any time. This is not correct for sure.

So, if I had this question in the exam as is (which I don't like), I would have gone for (A). Note that the question says "If a student in the Business program described above" - I would take it to mean "MBA in International Business". Option (A) correctly uses prior to 1995 and I would hence take it to be true.

Thanks for explanation, Karishma. So, here are we assuming unstated assumption that there was Seminar on Microeconomics even before 1990 and seminar on Applied Economics before 1994 ? As this is not stated in whole stimulus anywhere..this is really a confusing one




Again, thanks for your help !