Recipe testers should not simply blame the author

Question

Recipe testers should not simply blame the author of a recipe when the recipe does not work but find out why the recipe was unsuccessful by studying ingredients, combinations, and temperatures. Only through this sort of exhaustive analysis can the recipes be corrected and made palatable.

Which of the following is a necessary assumption in the argument above?

A. The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure.
B. The author of a recipe should be the one who tests the recipe.
C. More thorough testing of recipes will always create recipes that are more palatable.
D. Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test.
E. Most recipes are unpalatable due to the combinations of their ingredients.

GmatDaddy · Answer

I went for C but I believe because it uses extreme language(More thorough testing of recipes will  always  create recipes that are more palatable.) it can not be the ans.
can anyone confirm the same ?

Helium · Answer

Helium · Answer

The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure.- Recipe testers should not simply blame the author - Read carefully simply not blame the author ...there can be other reasons for the unsuccessful recipe. But then author can also be blamed for the unsuccessful recipe. Hope this helps

Helium · Answer

The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure.- Recipe testers should not simply blame the author - Read carefully simply not blame the author ...there can be other reasons for the unsuccessful recipe. But then author can also be blamed for the unsuccessful recipe. Hope this helps

Addupaddukaddu · Answer

Here's my two cents. It's important to understand the argument before jumping into the options. You can use mnemonics or indicators that make life easier. especially on a time constraint that demands you solve this question in around 2 mins.

So here's the argument deconstructed:
X should not do Y but should do Z. Conclusion: only through Z can they get P.  This is the least count of the argument. I'll explain what that means in point 2.  
1. Repetitions not allowed.
2. Anything that breaks X, Y, Z or P further is not a sufficient assumption. for example, if I say combinations are/are not a major factor in palatability, I'm not going to blow the argument open since combinations is just one of the criteria. So keeping your cool and choosing what information can be clubbed in a variable is really important; if you can do this, the major battle is won.
Only valid assumptions: (1) Y or any other thing (not mentioned in the argument) cannot get P (2) X should do P (3) Not P means Not Z (implication contra-positive)
Anything that even hints at the above three is a winning choice. 
D is an exact match.

Common wrong answers A and C 
A. We can eliminate this through 1. assumption negation and 2. the fact that the option breaks the least count. It talks about the author not being the cause. Now since we selected Y to encompass "blame the author for the recipe", if the author is or isn't to be blamed doesn't support our conclusion of Analysis gives palatable (only through Z can they get P). By the first technique if you negate it again, it doesn't really weaken the argument. It actually doesn't really do anything to the argument to be honest.

C. Option C is a tricky one to eliminate, but if you have your logic (mathematical/symbolic logic) antennas up this is an easy strike out. Option C reads, in variables, If Z happens then P has to happen, which is wrong because the conclusion reads only through Z can they get P. Confused? Don't be!
Let's take Z and P as easily understood analogies. Let's call Z = Grey rainy clouds and P = rain. Let's read the conclusion. Only through grey rains clouds can they get rain. Seems legit. That means rain only comes from grey rainy clouds. Or no rain means no grey rainy clouds. Yes! that seems okay. Does the option say that though?
Now let's read option C. If grey rainy clouds occur then it has to rain. Ouch. Not necessarily. I can have grey rainy clouds and no rain. Rain needs grey rainy clouds but grey rainy clouds doesn't necessarily mean rain. There could be no rain. 
AAH!!

TheGraceful · Answer

I too had chosen 'A' as my answer. Thanks for explanation in breif - especially for the common trap answers.
Although your example in explnation is equally confusing as the question itself is, I got the point for not getting intoo the trap.
Thank you very much.

The Graceful.

gvij2017 · Answer

Recently, I have seen a video lecture prepared by Jamboree Education, a renowned institute for GMAT preparation, on assumption. 
It was told that you can blindly cross off a choice which contain "should" in assumption question.

Following above concept, I ignored B and D without a think. 
But here D is correct choice which contain "should". 
Anybody who is aware of this knowledge, please, help me to clear out this blurred understanding.

VodkaHelps · Answer

Recipe testers should not simply blame the author of a recipe when the recipe does not work but find out why the recipe was unsuccessful by studying ingredients, combinations, and temperatures. Only through this sort of exhaustive analysis can the recipes be corrected and made palatable.

Which of the following is a necessary assumption in the argument above?

A. The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure.
  -> Irrelevant. Why? Because the ingredients, combinations and temperatures were effected by the author himself. Therefore, he is partially, if not fully, responsible for the recipe failure. 
 
B. The author of a recipe should be the one who tests the recipe.
  -> I can't explain this one but it is clearly making no sense because in the stimulus we were told that the reciple testers should do more study rather than just say yes/no. If it were tested by the author of the recipe himself, then he would probably have done critical study of his failure without the need of above advice.  
C. More thorough testing of recipes will always create recipes that are more palatable.
  -> Tempting answer for me. However I realized that the stimulus was not about the testing of recipes, but it was about the critical analysis of what went wrong. Hence, this is not a correct answer.

D. Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test.
  -> This is the CORRECT answer. Simply the advice in the stimulus suggests that the testers should do more work rather than just say yes/no as if they are stakeholders of the recipe. Otherwise, why should the testers bother about doing such research, wasting their time and energy?

E. Most recipes are unpalatable due to the combinations of their ingredients.
  -> Out of scope

TheGraceful · Answer

The strategy, taught by Jamboree education can be validated by applying on official questions (OG's and GMATPrep). Keep an eye if you find a glitch to this rule on those, I too am going to do that. If we find any, that means the rules is NOT valid and We will report on this forum.
Does that sound good?

Thanks
The Graceful

pk123 · Answer

Not sure the conclusion here is correct.... I think conclusion is Recipe testers should not blame author when recipe does not work but find out why recipe was unsuccessful by studying ingredients, combinations and temperatures.
 because it answers the question why   because only through this sort of exhaustive analysis can the recipes be corrected and made palatable

Always conclusion should pass why test, except when this is a recommendation or suggestion.... Infact here conclusion also looks like a suggestion that they should not Y but do Z.

My take on answers is as below.

A. The author of a recipe is not the cause of the recipe's failure. --- this is a trap answer.... this seems a paraphrase of the conclusion ...testers should not blame author when recipe does not work. It does not bridge the gap between evidence (exhaustive analysis corrects recipe and makes palatable recipes) and conclusion (do not blame author but study ingredients bla bla)
Lets negate this ...author is the cause of recipe's failure but then it misses big picture that do not blame but find out why this failed because only through study we can correct and make it palatable....the conclusion still holds
B. The author of a recipe should be the one who tests the recipe.---- Not necessarily as tester are the ones who do it
C. More thorough testing of recipes will always create recipes that are more palatable. -- Argument is 100% correct as testing helps to correct and make recipe palatable but not necessarily this is how you arrive at conclusion. Conclusion is  when recipe does not work  you find it through exhaustive analysis. but here assumption is more focusing on how we can make recipe palatable
D. Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test.--this looks an assumption as recipe testers test recipes, if recipes are ok, its all good. but if recipes are not good, testers need to do exhaustive analysis and what exhaustive analysis does , it makes recipe palatable....so this bridges the gap between conclusion and evidence
E. Most recipes are unpalatable due to the combinations of their ingredients. --need not be assumed that most are unpalatable..

Jujustrollss · Answer

I am still unable to understand the correct answer here. while I can understand why my selection of A is incorrect, I just cannot wrap my head around how the correct answer D can be selected.

egmat · Answer

Jujustrollss  Here's why D is the necessary assumption:

The argument concludes that recipe testers should do exhaustive analysis (studying ingredients, combinations, temperatures) so recipes can be corrected and made palatable.

But here's the critical gap:  Why should recipe testers do all this work to make recipes palatable?

The argument never explicitly states that contributing to palatability is part of their responsibility. It simply assumes this is their role. That's exactly what D provides: "Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test."

Without this assumption, the entire recommendation falls apart. If recipe testers  shouldn't  contribute to making recipes palatable, why would they need to do exhaustive analysis to correct them?

Strategic Framework: The Negation Test

For necessary assumption questions, use this powerful technique:

Identify the answer choice you're testing 
Original D: "Recipe testers should contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test."
 
  Negate it 
Negated D: "Recipe testers should  NOT  contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test."
 
  Check if the argument collapses 
If recipe testers shouldn't contribute to palatability, why would the author tell them to do exhaustive analysis to make recipes palatable? The argument makes no sense.
 
  If the argument falls apart → you've found your necessary assumption

Hope this helps. If you want, you can practice similar questions  here (you'll find a lot of OG questions).

DangPham9625 · Answer

But the conclusion said that they should do that WHEN the recipe doesn't work. It could well be that they do that because they want the recipe to work so they can have something to eat?? I still don't get why D is neccessary for the conclusion to be drawn

egmat · Answer

DangPham9625 I understand your confusion - you're thinking about WHY someone might do the analysis (their motivation) rather than what must be logically true for the argument to hold. This is a key distinction in Necessary Assumption questions. Understanding the Argument's Logic The argument states: Recipe testers should do exhaustive analysis (ingredients, combinations, temperatures) PURPOSE: So that recipes can be corrected and made palatable The Gap: The argument tells testers what to do AND states the intended outcome (palatability). But here's what it assumes without stating: that recipe testers should be working toward that goal of making recipes palatable. Think about it - if testers have no responsibility for palatability, why would the argument tell them to do exhaustive analysis for the purpose of making recipes palatable? Let's negate option D : "Recipe testers should NOT contribute to the eventual palatability of the recipes they test." If testers shouldn't contribute to palatability, then the entire conclusion falls apart. Why should they do exhaustive analysis to correct recipes and make them palatable if that's not part of their role? The argument makes no sense. About Your "Something to Eat" Point You mentioned: "It could well be that they do that because they want the recipe to work so they can have something to eat." This brings in outside reasoning about motivation (more like a real-world motivation). On GMAT CR, necessary assumptions address logical gaps within the argument as written , not real-world motivations or alternative explanations. The argument assumes testers should contribute to palatability as part of their role - that's the gap D fills. Does that make it clearer for you? I believe D seems not as necessary here because of our own natural instincts that can come when we think about the argument- just try to eliminate that and take the argument exactly as it's given. You'll see why D becomes necessary for the argument to hold

If you still do feel confused, don't hesitate to ask follow-up questions.

Recipe testers should not simply blame the author

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

Recipe testers should not simply blame the author

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