Sukant2010 wrote:
Hi Chiranjeev,
Thanx for ur response. As I said, I have seen very rare such questions. But in the example question you have given, the ans is a little bit clear as there is no other option actually targeting any disadvantage of bamboos over steel and concrete. In fact, in the question all the options assumed something or other and finally, I could easily mark option (b) because of the above said reason. In the current question being discussed, I can clearly see from option (a) that if there are people who won't spend any money when they actually required to, how can govt get the funds or how can govt provide these subsidized electric cars.
U are right that sometimes, we have to assume something to get the right answer, but in this question from option (a), I can explicitly tell that govt won't be able to do so if people aren't willing any more to buy even if they have told the opposite in the surveys. I actually donot have to assume anything. This is quite clear.
But in option (c), firstly, I have to assume that electric cars are more convenient that gasoline cars ( hell of an assumption, considering the fact that 'convenience' word is not even used once during the passage). I say I am an expert and gasoline cars are more convenient than electric cars. Then, option (c) cant be the answer. This was actually what I meant by saying 'vague' assumptions because we are taking too far fetched information to prove a point.
The only concern for govt is funds and an interested market; option (a) destroys the second point (interested market). Govt cannot sell cars if they donot get an interested market. From option (c), we are also (though by taking such assumptions) attacking the second point (an interested market), but via option (a) we donot have to assume anything that is far beyond the scope of the passage.
You can check all examples of
OG as well in which assumptions are being taken in the options, but there will be explicit assumptions such as the one you showed. Never will there be any question in which an option explicitly answers the question and an option which answers by assuming way too much.
I think I have made my point. Please correct me wherever I am wrong...
Thanks in advance!!!!
Hi Sukant,
I see that you have some good understanding of the official questions. Let me put here two points to explain my case: one in favor of option C and one against option A.
1. In option C, even if you ignore "convenience" part, there is one more information embedded in option C as I explain in my detailed solution. Option C also says that people near retirement age constitute more than 50% of the population. Now, we know from the argument that the government's plan relies on a survey of middle-aged people.
Option C suggests that the government's plan might not work for a majority of population (unless you assume that the priorities of both the categories of people are same).
In other words, option C suggests that the surveyed people are actually not representative of the population. Now, since the argument relies on the survey results, the argument is weakened by option C. Actually, some official questions are actually built around this idea of representative sample. You can refer to my article on Representative Samples:
article-representative-sample-a-concept-tested-in-gmat-cr-158832.html2. The problem with option A is "some". It suggests that some people will not switch to electric cars. Right?
Now, an important point to consider here is that does the argument require all people to switch for the plan to be successful. The answer is No.
Even if 10% of the people don't switch, the plan will very likely to succeed.
This plan is going to affect the population of the whole country. It is rather expected that there would be some people who will not switch. The plan does not rely on or expect all people to switch.
Just because we know some people will not switch, our belief in the plan does not go down.
On the other hand, if option A had suggested 50% of the people will not switch, then it might be correct.
I hope it helps.
Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________