There are community leaders, as well as ex-convicts, who are successfu

Question

There are community leaders, as well as ex-convicts, who are successful in business. All people who are successful in business are invited to join the Reynard Club.

Which of the following can be logically inferred based on the statements above?

(A) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are successful in business.

(B) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are community leaders or ex-convicts.

(C) Some who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are not community leaders or ex-convicts.

(D) Some ex-convicts are encouraged to join the Reynard Club.

(E) Some ex-convicts are not encouraged to join the Reynard Club.

Day 18 Question of the Verbal Contest:  Race Against the GMAT Club Timer 
Please make sure to post a brief reply without revealing your solution to enter the contest!

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Premises:  There are community leaders, as well as ex-convicts, who are successful in business. All people who are successful in business are invited to join the Reynard Club.

Question:  Which of the following can be logically  inferred  based on the statements above?

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

(A) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are successful in business.
 Wrong.  Classical fallacy. "people successful in business" is just a subset of Reynard Club.  It's possible  that people who are not successful in business but in art, for example, are also invited to joint the club.

(B) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are community leaders or ex-convicts.
 Wrong.  Same error as in A. Community leaders or ex-convicts are just subset of people who are successful in business.  It's possible  that there are some people who are successful in business are NOT community leaders or ex-convicts.

(C) Some who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are not community leaders or ex-convicts.
 Wrong.   TEMPTING.  A lot people are allured by the word "some".  Think about extreme case.   It's possible  that all people are invited to joint the club are community leaders or ex-convicts.

(D) Some ex-convicts are encouraged to join the Reynard Club.
  Correct.   D  repeats  the premises. So it 100% correct. D is flawless even when we consider extreme cases.

(E) Some ex-convicts are not encouraged to join the Reynard Club.
 Wrong.   TEMPTING.  A lot people are allured by the word "some". But E is actually wrong.  Think about extreme case,   It's possible  all ex-convicts are successful in business. Clearly, E may be wrong.

Hope it helps.

TAKE AWAY.

1. It doesn't matter options are 1% wrong or 100% wrong. If they have even a small chance of getting wrong (consider extreme cases), they are wrong.
2. Correct option must be flawless. There are 2 cases (1) Correct answer  repeats  a premise; (2) Correct answer  combines  some premises. 
3. Do not always assume "some" is a head up to pick a correct answer. It may or may not help. When stuck,  think about extreme cases (negation technique)  to eliminate wrong options.

carcass · Answer

Tricky one. C is tempting but I am not really sure.

D is better to my eyes.

D is the answer for me.

AliciaSierra · Answer

As per passage, "All people who are successful in business are invited to join the Reynard Club." It means, people who are encouraged to join club should be successful in business.

Option A says same thing--> All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are successful in business.
My answer would be Option A.

aniteshgmat1101 · Answer

Argument is NOT saying that ONLY the successful people were invited to join the club. 
All successful people invited, but there could be a few unsuccessful people also.
So, here reversal of logic is not recommended.

nexphase · Answer

Kudos to you. I had converted the question into mathematical equations but I forgot to consider the extreme cases (even though I always do for GMAT DS-based questions).

For those of you wondering, the question can be phrased as this:

Set (B) = CL + EC + .... + X where B = successful at business, CL = community leaders, EC = ex-convicts, and X = possibly additional categories not considered.

Set (RC) = Set(B) + .... + Set(X), essentially saying All Invited to the Reynard Club includes those who are successful at business plus possibly other groups.

(A) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are successful in business.  Eliminate  - This is saying that Set (RC) only contains Set (B) which is not proved in the statement.

(B) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are community leaders or ex-convicts.  Eliminate  - This implies that Set (RC) only contains CL + EC, but we know that Set (B) may contain other groups other than CL and EC.

(C) Some who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are not community leaders or ex-convicts.  Eliminate   I initially chose this but I now see why I was wrong. Why? Because it's not airtight. This is saying that Set (B) = CL + EC + X (another group). But in the above we only stated that Set (B) may contain other groups, not absolute. Since (C) is making an absolute statement, it is incorrect.

(D) Some ex-convicts are encouraged to join the Reynard Club.  Correct   We know that regardless what happens, EC is always part of B (that part is proven) and since Set (RC) = Set (B) + maybe others, then at least 1 EC was invited.

(E) Some ex-convicts are not encouraged to join the Reynard Club.  Eliminate   Just flat out wrong.

Nanjain · Answer

how can we apply negation technique in this question?

HaileyCusimano · Answer

Hi Nanjain ! I'd be happy to chat with you a little more about this question! (It's one of my faves!) So, first off - the "negation technique," in its true form, doesn't really apply here. We use assumption negation to identify the answer that "must be true in order for the argument's logic to be valid" on assumption questions. Now, the good news is that we can use a similarly "formulaic" structure to apply process of elimination on this question (but one with a totally different objective)! For inference questions, the correct answer is the one that is guaranteed based on the given premises in the stimulus. So, wrong answers (even the convincing ones!) could be true, ...they might even be likely to be true... but as soon as they "could be false," they are not viable options for a proper inference. So, we can test inference answer choices by asking the question, "is this guaranteed to be true based on the information above?" Now, the trick here is that if we can reason through a way an answer could be false, while complying with the parameters of the stimulus - we can eliminate it! What makes this question particularly tricky, is that it brings into play what we at Veritas call "mental intertia," basically - our bias toward our preconceived experiences with the topic. (I actually take a look at this question at 29:18 of this GMATClub webinar on Mental Inertia . Feel free to check it out if you'd like!) The question makes it *sound* like the club is exclusive and specific to only those who are successful in business, but it doesn't actually say that this is the case! We could be in a position where only those successful in business are invited, and perhaps all those individuals are either community leaders or ex cons (See the lefthand of the figure below,) or we could be in a position where absolutely everyone is invited! (see righthand side) https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?mode=view&id=53048 So, if an answer could be false, we can eliminate it from the running. Let's take a look at our options: There are community leaders, as well as ex-convicts, who are successful in business. All people who are successful in business are invited to join the Reynard Club. Which of the following can be logically inferred based on the statements above? (A) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are successful in business. <- Just because all people who are successful are invited to join, doesn't tell us all who are invited are successful. Remember, according to the info, this club could be not-so-exclusive at all. Absolutely everyone could be invited! (See righthand visual). This one's out! (B) All who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are community leaders or ex-convicts. <- Again, see righthand visual - we could have plenty of others who are invited. So while this *could be true,* its definitely not guaranteed based on the info. (C) Some who are encouraged to join the Reynard Club are not community leaders or ex-convicts. <- Here, the first visual is the key to keep in mind. The stimulus doesn't tell us who isn't invited, so while it could be "no one," as we saw in the above two answers, it could also be "everyone else," as we can see from the lefthand visual. We could be in a position where absolutely all who are successful in business fall under one of those two categories, and no one else is welcome! (how rude!

) (D) Some ex-convicts are encouraged to join the Reynard Club. <- Bingo! Here, regardless of how we imagine the scenario, we were told that "some ex convicts are successful in business," and that "all who are successful in business are invited to join." So, at the very least, those ex convicts who are successful in business are invited. This answer is guaranteed to be true based on the truth of the stimulus! (E) Some ex-convicts are not encouraged to join the Reynard Club. <- While we know that "some," are invited, "some" could feasibly be all! (Again, see the righthand depiction.) Because we are not guaranteed that anyone *isn't* invited, this answer can be eliminated, and we can confidently conclude that (D) is our answer! So, slightly different approach - equally structured process.

I hope this helps! I'd be happy to chat more about this question if you'd like - just let me know!

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

There are community leaders, as well as ex-convicts, who are successfu

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

There are community leaders, as well as ex-convicts, who are successfu

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards