TaN1213 wrote:
Hello Carolyn,
Please find my understanding of B :
[combining the question stem and option B]
A flaw in the argument above is that it "proceeds as though a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result must always be present for that result to be achieved"
The B states the flaw as though(assuming) the following is correct :
The action of gaining approximately one pound every year(a condition) that by itself is enough to guarantee a longer lifespan (a certain result) must always be present for actually getting a longer lifespan(result to be achieved).
The bold 'as though' part is the flawed assumption that is stated in B. For example: Everyone greeted Garry as though he is the owner of the casino. This is the flawed assumption implied by 'as though'. It does not mean that this sentence is telling that Garry himself was the owner of the casino. Similarly, B is not talking about a condition that must be present in order for a result to be achieved. B states the flaw.
By the way, just wondering where is Mike. Since quite many days, I haven't had seen him around in the gmatclub. I hope he is doing well.
Thank you.
GMATNinja, your insight is much appreciated.
Thank you. Hi
TaN1213,
Mike is currently working on other projects at
Magoosh, and so won't be posting on GMATclub much for now.
Thanks for clarifying your reasoning
Let's use a different example to understand this better, since the wording here can get a little complicated. Say we have a statement like:
John incorrectly assumes that his ice cream,
which is chocolate, is dairy-free.
Now, the incorrect assumption here is that the ice cream is
dairy-free. It is NOT that the ice cream is
chocolate. The fact that the ice cream is chocolate is not part of his assumption -- it is something that this statement is assuming is fact. So according to this statement, there is no question that the ice cream is chocolate. If the ice cream is not in fact chocolate, then this entire statement no longer applies, because it does not match the situation. If John's ice cream is vanilla, this statement doesn't make sense. His assumption is
only that the ice cream is
dairy-free.
Now let's look at our actual statement:
B assumes that the action of gaining approximately one pound every year (a condition)
that by itself is enough to guarantee a longer lifespan (a certain result) must always be present for actually getting a longer lifespan (result to be achieved).
So, the "which is chocolate" part is analogous to "that by itself is enough to guarantee a longer lifespan". It is NOT part of the assumption -- it is something that
must be true in order for the statement to make sense. However, this is not true. Gaining approximately one point every year is NOT enough to guarantee a longer lifespan by itself. This is like saying that John's ice cream is vanilla. It makes the entire statement irrelevant to our situation, because it is simply not true. Here, the only assumption is that the action of gaining approximately one pound every year must always be present for getting a longer lifespan.
In your second example, there isn't an analogous part. Let's modify it to say:
Everyone greeted Garry as though he is the owner of the casino, since he spends so much time gambling. The assumption here is still just that Garry is the owner of the casino. The fact that he spends so much time gambling is NOT part of the assumption -- it is something that must be true in order for this statement to apply. So let's say that Garry actually never gambles. Then, this statement will simply not apply; it no longer makes any sense. If Garry never gambles, then it's not that people are making an incorrect assumption -- the facts are just totally wrong.
Does that help to clear things up any more here? If not, let me know
-Carolyn
_________________