Recently, the research and development departments of major pharmaceut

Diagramming
1) R&D depts of major pharmaceutical org have been experimenting with new injections
2) injections boost level of iron in anemic children
3) iron boost is needed to reverse anemic condition
4) Companies express confidence that anemic children can be cure simply by using the supplements <-- conclusion

1-3 are the premise of the argument and 4 is the conclusion.

To arrive at the conclusion, the companies made an assumption.

A) major pharmaceutical companies have the responsibility to cure childhood anemia
- Choice A is clearly out. The companies did not assume that they have the responsibility to cure childhood anemia. This choice is not important for the conclusion to stand solidly

B)a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children
- The companies did not have to assume this ! It's already clearly stated in the premise (point 3) whereby it is said that and iron boost is needed to reverse anemic condition

C)a diet rich in iron cannot improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become necessary
- C is also not the assumption either. Negating, C would become a diet rich in iron can cure anemia. This still does not say why we can't just use the biochemical supplements to cure anemic children (we're not arguing the best method now, so C is not a valid assumption)

D)children aflicted with anemia will find out about and submit to injections that can reverse their conditions
- Let's negate this choice. If children afflicated with anemia do not find out and will not submit to injectons, then it doesn't matter if the drug is extremely effective since no one is willing to use it. This means that the companies assumes that the child wants to use the drug they developed.

E)the use of biochemical supplements is the safest way to cure anemia in children
- Again, this is not valid since we're not arguing which is the safest way

D is a good choice.

I am not sure what your question is. Is it that they say that anemia will be cured by the use of biochemical supplements, not the injection?
If yes, then they mention "In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect..." which definitely implies the injection that is being developed is a biochemical remedy.
If your question is something else, please clarify.

Look at it this way. The question specifically states "In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect" ... They are concluding that it will have desired effect.. What is the desired effect? It is that children WILL BE cured.
If we are concluding that they will be cured, we are assuming that they will be willing to use the injection...

If I say, my method of solving equations will change the way people do Math. What are my assumptions? Not just that my method is effective but also that people will be willing to use my method.

Use Assumption Negation Technique. An assumption is a missing necessary premise. In case assumption is negated, the conclusion cannot be true.
So if we negate the option "children afflicted with anemia will find out about and submit to injections that can reverse their conditions" and make it "children afflicted with anemia will not find out about the injection and will not submit to it", then can we conclude that the injection will cure the children? No. So it has to be an assumption.

Besides, there isn't any other option even close to being an assumption.

I have serious issues with the wording here, since it's open to two completely legitimate interpretations; the phrase "children who are suffering from anemia will be cured" could mean two different things. It could mean "*all* children with anemia will be cured" (this is the interpretation that they intend), or it could mean "this supplement is a successful cure for anemia". I find the second interpretation far more reasonable than the first. To give a parallel example, if a veterinarian says "this injection will cure rabies in dogs", he or she surely doesn't mean "because of this injection, rabies will, in the future, be completely eradicated in dogs". Instead he or she means "if a dog takes this injection, the dog's rabies will be cured".

Now, if you take "children who are suffering from anemia will be cured" to mean "this supplement is an effective cure for those who take it", then D is not a relevant assumption at all; a supplement can be an effective cure for a disease even if no one actually uses it. Only B would be a good answer in that case. I disagree with the posts above which dismiss B as an assumption; it is an assumption in the argument. The stem tells us that iron boosts are *necessary* to reverse anemia. The stem does not tell us that iron boosts are *sufficient* to reverse anemia. The iron supplements will only reverse anemia if nothing in addition to iron is needed to reverse anemia. To give a different example, if I say "I need a tent to go camping. I have a tent, so I can go camping", then I'm assuming that a tent is *all* I need to go camping - that is, I'm assuming that the tent alone is sufficient for camping, and that I don't need, say, food as well. Since B suggests that iron supplements are the only thing required to reverse anemia, it does provide a missing assumption in the argument.

Now, if instead you interpret "children who are suffering from anemia will be cured" to mean that anemia will be eliminated because of the supplement, then D is certainly a good answer, but I think that's a bizarre way to interpret the question stem here.

Given how I interpret the question, I think B is a better answer than D here, though someone who interprets the question differently can certainly justify answer D. I find the whole question problematic, so I wouldn't suggest devoting much time to it.

I definitely agree with you Ian.
My concern is that option B says:
"a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children"

They call it the major factor, something that is necessary, not the only factor. (Again a matter of interpretation, I guess)

Therefore, I feel the need to discount it and look for an alternative. This leads me to interpret it the way they meant it.

As I said in my first post of this topic - I would have preferred an assumption such as 'Iron is the only thing you need to be cured'

But of course, no point spending too much time on it.

I will go with D,

Negate the statement :If children aren't aware of such injection or refrain from using it, then no way this will work to cure anemia.

Assumptions are unstated premise.
B is already stated in the argument .. You just need to paraphrase to get this .

Hey viks, I also use the negation technique when down to two very close choices. But one has to use this technique correctly in order to reap its benefits.

C: a diet rich in iron cannot improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become unnecessary

Negation of C is: a diet rich in iron can sometimes improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become unnecessary

Now you can see that negation of C doesn't hurt the conclusion in a decisive manner, as in some (or many) cases, biochemical supplements are still required.

I have read about negation technique in Powerscore - Critical reasoning bible, where it is beautifully explained. It states that negation is logical opposite and not polar opposite.

eg: Negation of wet is not wet, and not dry,
similarly negation of none is some , and not all

if you want a concise list of negation words, you can find them in Manhattan Gmat-CR book.

Its a tough choice between B and D, let's try negating each

B) Low iron level is NOT the major factor influencing incidence of anemia. Well it may NOT be the major factor but still a critical one so this may work

D) children will not find about and submit to injections. Now do children really have to find about it? Won't parent actually do this and submit them to the injections?

That's why I wasn't too sure about D, it doesn't sound too realistic to me. I would have gone with B honestly, but would be cool if someone could shed some light between each of these answer choices

Cheers
J

Responding to a pm:

This question has been discussed before and here is my explanation:


Let me expand a little more on (C)
An assumption is something that is necessary for the conclusion to hold.
Conclusion: These biochemical supplements will cure anemic children.

Are we assuming that proper food will not cure them? No. We are saying that these shots WILL cure the condition. Whether something else can also cure it is not the question. Had the conclusion been "ONLY these biochemical supplements can cure anemic children" then (C) would have been an assumption.

Hence (C) is not correct.

Dear rahulsn84,
I'm happy to answer your p.m.

As you may know, one powerful test for the Assumption of a CR argument is the Negation Test. Here's a blog that explains this technique if you are unfamiliar.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/assumption ... -the-gmat/

In this question, think about the conclusion: " children who are suffering from anemia will be cured relatively simply through the use of such biochemical supplements."

Now, think about the question: "In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect, the pharmaceutical companies assume that . . ."

Now, let's look at (C) --- in particular, look at the negation of (C):
a diet rich in iron can improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become unnecessary
Suppose this is true. Suppose a diet rich in iron would prevent anemia. Well, it's possible this diet rich in iron would consist of, for example, a good share of high quality meat, such as children in the first world might eat, but it may be that most of the children who suffer anemia live in poverty and thus can't afford the high quality diets that would be rich in iron. We don't know that this is true, but it could be true. Thus, even though those wonderful diets are out there, they are not accessible to the children suffering anemia, so these children will still need the biochemical supplement. Thus, this statement could be 100% true, and the argument would still work. Right there, that indicates we are not dealing with an assumption. When we negate an assumption of the argument, that constitutes a devastating objection from which the argument cannot recover. Negating the assumption KO's the argument.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

The clauses are:
children afflicted with anemia will find out about injections
children afflicted with anemia will submit to injections

They have a common object of the preposition - 'injections'.
So for brevity, it is written only once.

Dear rishit1080,

I'm happy to respond.

I would suggest looking at what the genius Karishma said in post of May 6, 2014, above on this thread. (B) is 100% true, and in fact, it already was mentioned in the prompt. If something is mentioned explicitly in the prompt, it can't be an assumption. Also, see my comments to sleepynut below.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Dear sleepynut,

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I think you are being a bit too literalist in your reading of (D). (D) is NOT implying that the young child do all the medical research themselves! Let's step back and think. Think about, say, a child of 4 years old. How did this child learn about over 95% of what he knows? Of course, from his parents. The child finds out about everything from his parents. Thus, the child would find out about the injection from his parents. Of course, the parents may well not be a position to perform a full diagnosis. Chances are, the parents just know something is wrong with the child's health, so the parents naturally take the child to the doctor or someone who can provide medical care, and then, both the parents & child might find out about the supplement from this medical professional.
Notice that there are no wild assumptions here--of course young children learn from their parents, and of course parents take their sick child to a a doctor.
All (D) is saying is that there must be some way that the information reaches the parents & child---if the information about the injections doesn't reach them, or if they are resistant to it, then the medicine won't help the child.
Admittedly, the wording is a little bizarre and awkward, to phrase this simply in terms of the children, and not both the children & parents. It's unusual phrasing, not how I would write the question, but not wrong.

Now, as for (B), the prompt talks about "the boost in iron that anemic children need to reverse their condition." The direct implication of this is that the children with anemia need iron, and if they get iron, it cures the anemia. In other words, iron or lack of iron is the big difference-maker for anemia. This is almost identical to what (B) is saying. Choice (B) would be an excellent answer for an inference statement: an extremely close restatement of what is explicitly stated. A good inference is NOT a good assumption. The inference is a rephrasing of essentially what is already there explicitly in the prompt. An inference is something already there, but an assumption is not already present in what is printed. An assumption is a missing piece, something not stated that provides an "aha!"--the magic invisible glue that holds the argument together.

The different tasks on GMAT CR are, in fact, quite different. The inference task is very different from the assumption task. Part of GMAT CR success is appreciating what is unique in each task and how the tasks differ from each other.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Why can (B) not be the answer?

(B) a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children

Here is a part of the argument - "new injections that provide the boost in iron that anemic children need to reverse their condition"
So we are given that these new injections provide the iron boost that is needed to reverse anaemia. Then we go on to conclude that anaemia will be cured through the use of these supplements.

What are the assumptions in saying that anaemia will be cured? There are many:
1. that people will find out about these supplements and use them.
2. that these supplements are all that are needed to reverse the condition. We know they are needed but are they the only thing needed, we don't know.
etc

Do we need to assume that low iron level is a major influencing factor? No. That is not an assumption. We are already given that boost in iron is needed. So it must be a major influencing factor. Anyway, even if it is not a "major" influencing factor, we are given that the iron boost is needed, so it is a factor for sure.

(D) is not mentioned in the passage.
It gives that a new injection which provides iron is being developed.
And it tells us that pharmaceutical companies are claiming that children will be cured through their use.

What is not known is the readiness of the children to take these shots. The pharma company is assuming that children will find out about and take these shots - actions that are necessary for them to get cured.

Not true. The argument does not deal with what else can improve the condition. Neither does it deal with which solution is better. It only talks about biochemical supplements as a solution.

The author's conclusion reflects the companies' confidence that anemic children will be cured relatively simply with a new iron injection. The evidence is the first sentence: A new injection can apparently reverse children's anemia. Can you see any gaps between the conclusion and evidence? Notice that the evidence explains that something can be done and the conclusion states that something will be done. Just because the cure is possible doesn't mean it will automatically be administered. Any number of factors could serve to block implementation. The author assumes that children will receive the injection based on the fact that it exists. Choice (D) expresses this more concretely: the author assumes that children are aware of and will be able to receive this injection.

The argument concerns whether the cure will become available, but (A) is concerned with who has primary responsibility for the cure, so it's outside the scope. (C) states that a managed diet would not cure anemia. But the author doesn't state that the injection is the only cure for anemia, so the argument needn't assume that no other cure exists. (B) is too extreme in that it's not necessary that low iron be the only cause of anemia. The author states that the iron shots reverse children's anemia, regardless of the specific cause or combination of causes, so (D) need not be assumed. (E) is both extreme and outside the scope. The author only claims that the injection cures anemia "relatively simply." Safety never comes up as an issue and there is no need to assume that the injections are the safest method to reverse anemia.