In New York there has been an explosion of public interest in, and tal

Why is C wrong? The argument says the there is explosion of interest and the maximum talent is moving towards internet start ups & this is supported by premise that there is 100 or so active internet startups. But what if the similar or corresponding increase in startups is found in other fields as well.

thanks for taking the time to answer the question. BUT i still need to understand something.

so , the argument says that if 90 out of 100 started work in last 3 years, then the internet start up is explosion.
Answer B says "fewer than 90 ceased operation in the last 5 years) .. i agree with you that if there 98 were ceased in last 5 yeas then the conclusion will fell apart.
BUT
my confusion is … answer B says (fewer than 90 ) so i translated it to ( there is 89 internet startups ceased in last 5 years) this translation will not make sense with the passage.
the passage says : 90 started working in last 3 years
answer B says : 89 stopped working ……. then there 1 left ,,, this will support the conclusion that there is an " explosion "

can you explain please ?
thanks

Yes, I think you are thinking in the right direction but just losing your way midway. You are looking for an assumption. If you negate the assumption, the conclusion cannot hold.

(B)There were fewer than 90 internet startups that had been active 5 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 5 years.
Negate (B) - There were more than 90 internet startups that had been active 5 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 5 years.

If negated (B) holds, conclusion cannot hold.
More than 90 startups means, say 95 companies that had been active closed down in the last 5 yrs. Then we CANNOT say that the conclusion can be true.
Since negative (B) breaks the conclusion, option (B) is an assumption.

Here is a post on assumptions that you might find useful: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/03 ... sumptions/

we have an "explosion" of startups.
it will be true only if in the last 5 years, fewer startups went out of business than those who entered the business.

A - viable or not, this is irrelevant.
B - aha, only one that is in the scope and looks like an assumption. negate this statement: there were more than 90 internet startups that had been active 5 years ago, and that ceased operations during the last 5 years. this one destroys the conclusion that internet startups are more than before during the last 5 years. why 90? because we have 90 created within the last 3 years. if more than 90 went out of business within 5 years, but only 90 created, then for sure there is not an increase.
C - irrelevant
D - irrelevant
E - irrelevant.

Here I point out my analysis:

Structure
Conc: In New York there has been an explosion of public interest in, and talent moving toward, internet startups over the last 5 years.
Basis of Conc (P1): Evidence: 90 of 100 internet startups currently active in the "New York Tech Meetup Group" were founded over the course of the last 3 years.

Pre-thinking:
The argument is assuming that the number of startups founded at any time before the 5 years has not been >= than 90 (or in other words has been <90). If negated.. explosion of interest toward startups has been there long time ago.

Answer choice analysis
(A)All of the 100 internet startups are commercially viable options. OFS
The commercial viability of the startups is not in discussion.

(B)There were fewer than 90 internet startups that had been active 5 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 5 years. Correct!
Aligned witth pre-thinking. If negated.. the conclusion is shattered because it means that there has been more interest on internet startups before.

(C)There has not been a corresponding increase in the number of startups devoted to other sectors such as fashion, pharmaceutical, and semiconductors. OFS.
Startups in other sectors is not in discussion. the argument is just concern with internet startups in NY.

(D)The percentage of college graduates going into computer related fields has increased over the past 5 years. OFS.
Argument not concerned with college graduates going to computed fields.

(E)The 90 most recently founded companies were all established as a result of creative energy on the part of young new talent. Irrelevant.
The way the 90 companies were established is not in discussion.

Hope the analysis help!

Rumi

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.