Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou

Yes, Roland is referring to the entire country (90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed).

Forget about Roland for a second and think about normal unemployment (5%--i.e. 1 in 20 workers are unemployed). Now let's imagine that unemployment is spread evenly across the country. In that case, if you know 20 workers, there's a good chance that you know an unemployed person (since, on average, 1 in 20 are unemployed). And if you know 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed. This is Sharon's argument.

But that argument ONLY works if we assume that unemployment is spread evenly across the country... why? Consider a country with 1 million workers and normal unemployment (so 50,000 unemployed workers). What if ALL 50,000 of those unemployed workers live in the same city? In that case, everyone who lives in that city will likely know someone who is unemployed, but everyone else in the country will NOT know someone who is unemployed.

That is obviously an extreme example. The point is that if unemployment is concentrated in a few isolated areas, then people OUTSIDE of those areas will be less likely to know someone who is unemployed. If unemployment is at 5% and distributed evenly, then anyone who knows 50 workers will likely know an unemployed worker (Sharon's argument). If unemployment is at 5% and NOT distributed evenly, then only the people in the high-concentrations areas will likely know someone who is unemployed. Outside of those areas, people who know 50 workers are MUCH LESS likely to know an unemployed person.

So if unemployment is evenly spread and 90% of people in the country know someone who is unemployed, then the data can be explained by normal unemployment figures. However, if unemployment is concentrated and, still, 90% know someone who is unemployed, then unemployment is likely higher than normal.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja ,

Thanks for this detailed explanation.

I have a general and a specific doubt related to this question.

Specific Doubt -
As per me , Sharon is making 2 assumptions at two different stages of her reply.
1 - She assumes that what ever she is going to reply will contradict/explain what Roland has said, i.e. 90% people of the country know someone unemployed
2 - In her reply itself, she assumes that , as lucidly explained by you, the unemployment is not geographically concentrated.

My problem was that I concentrated on the 1st assumption(if it can qualify as an assumption of Sharon) that 90% can be explained by the 1/20 logic . And if an answer choice says that , well, not every time it is 1/20 then it simply damages that assumption.

General Doubt -
In cases like the current question. Where there Is 1st person and the 2nd person replies to the 1st by giving a statement which -
a) Is making an assumption that the reply as a whole addresses the problem.
AND
b) The reply content itself is assuming something.

Then in such a case which assumption to target. first one or the second one?

I hope I am able to express my line of thought.

Thanks

testprep11, I wouldn't say that Sharon's reply depends on an assumption "that 90% can be explained by the 1/20 logic." Sharon is simply saying that with normal, moderate levels of employment, 1 in every 20 workers is unemployed. Given only that information, on average, anyone who knows 20 workers, probably knows 1 unemployed worker. Anyone who knows 40 workers probably knows about 2 unemployed workers, on average. So anyone who knows 50 workers is LIKELY to know at least 1 unemployed worker.

This could explain why "90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed." But Sharon's logic is independent of the statement by Roland. The point is that, given the information provided by Sharon, the 90% is not necessarily alarming.

But without the assumption in choice (B), Sharon's argument would not make us doubt whether the 90% figure is indeed alarming.

As for your general doubt, let us know if you have any other relevant examples. In general, I wouldn't try to rely on memorizing approaches to various questions that you've seen. In this case, Roland cites a statistic and says that it is alarming. According to Sharon, we can't simply conclude that this statistic is alarming. I don't quite think that Sharon is "making an assumption that the reply as a whole addresses the problem."

I hope that helps!

Premise:
1. unemployment is 5%. means 1 out of 20 would be unemployed.
2. so if a person know 50 people then chances are that he know atleast 1 to 2.5(avg) unemployed people.
3. How Roland's statement fit into sharon's - Many people are talking/know same unemployed person.

Pre-thinking:
For this all to be hold true many assumptions are needed. such as
1- What if many group of people that do not know each other.Suppose group of 20 people isolated with each other and every group has 1 unemployed. Can Roland statement still holds true. So we have to say that we must not have this kind of isolated groups.
2. Which bring us to ultimate assumption - Many group of people know same person as unemployed.


Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded --- it makes no affect on conclusion or either of the statements.

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population --- This one is more on the lines we have thought about. Concern is that if it does the grouping will be more on isolated people and 90% statics will not be successful completely. Though it is talking about a very edge of the situation and not exactly.

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population --- This will make whole thing go imbalance.

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents ---- well this could be an assumption for roland. but sheron's argument does not depend on it.

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics --- irrelevant

GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354, iamsiddharthkapoor

Hello experts - Could you let me know if my logic for eliminating A is accurate

Argument from Sharon -- Not a big deal ...Unemployment is normally at 5 % so if someone knows 20 people -- they will at-least know someone who is unemployed. No big surprise !

Negated A :

-- Normal levels of unemployment are frequently exceeded

Implication :

-- If unemployment levels are normally high : this actually supports Sharon argument even more ..i.e. people will always know someone who is unemployed

The negated A -- rather than breaking the argument is actually strengthening the argument

Is my negation thought process accurate for A specifically ?

Frequently is not the negation of rarely. These are words that are just meant to throw you off. Rare = some. The negation of some = none. This should help clear things up.

Posted from my mobile device

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that


(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

Given:
R-90% PPL Now rpt that they know someone unemployed--Alarming fact according to him
S-Normal level of unemployment is 5%. If a person know 50 PPL then amongst these ppl atleast 1 person will likely to be Unemployed

Prethinking:

=> S 's argument started with 'But' it means she is trying to say that she do not agree with R. Or by providing some facts she is trying to say that the fact that R has presented may not be 'Alarming'.
=> If Sample is 100 , 5 PPL are unemployed => A person can know 50 ppl from 95 employed PPL, or from a combination of employed and unemployed ppl. Clearly S is assuming that the sample of 50 PPL is comprising of both employed and unemployed ppl and they are distributed evenly in the country.

A) Incorrect- Negation: Normal Level of unemployment never exceeded.
Rarely= Sometimes==> Negation: Never (Some->None)
If normal level is not exceeding then this fact is irrelavent and more or less strengthening the Sharon's argument.

B) Correct: Matches with the prethinking.

Negation: Unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population.
If unemployment is concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population then the fact that sharon has presented is doubtful.
If the sample that sharon has selected is from geographically isolated area then a person may know many people who are unemployed. Similarly if the sample is from the other section of the population then it's possible that a person knows no one who is unemployed.Therefore, negation of the statement is breaking down the sharon's argument.

c) Incorrect- Negation: The number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is not always higher than 90% of the population.
=> Atleast sometime it's not higher than 90%.
Sharon's argument is not about 90% of the population, it was roland who cited this fact. Sharon is simply providing facts stating that the unemployment rate is normal.Hence irrelevant.

d) Incorrect-
Negation: If Roland is consciously distorting the statistics that he presents then the fact that he has cited about the 'alarming level of unemployment' may not be true. Which is what Sharon is trying to say. So negation statement is supporting Sharon's argument and not undermining it. Moreover Sharon's argument is independent of Roland's argument. Hence incorrect.

e) Incorrect- Sharon's argument is not about fear of losing job. so out of context.

can any of the experts explain option c in detail ?

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354

even though Mr gmatninja has explained the question really well and a lot of good explanations about why B is correct are here in this discussion, I can't seem to wrap my head around option C. I know that it is not the correct option, but i am not able to articulate the option in my mind. So please any of the experts, Please help

Regards,

We’re looking for an assumption underlying Sharon’s argument, meaning we need find the answer choice that MUST be true in order for Sharon’s conclusion to be properly drawn. With that in mind, I’m going to borrow heavily from the reasoning in our previous post that you mentioned, but take another look at (C):


So, does it HAVE to be true that more than 90% of the population ALWAYS knows someone who is unemployed in order to conclude that it’s not alarming that 90% of the people in this country know someone who is unemployed? No. It’s possible that SOMETIMES only 89% or less of the population knows some who is unemployed, but 90% or more is NORMAL and thus not alarming. Therefore, we can still properly draw Sharon’s conclusion, and (C) is not a required assumption.

I hope that helps!

Can someone tell me what "Geographically Isolated" exactly means?

Concentrated in one particular area, say a state/county/city, etc. and probably not having a lot of contact with other areas.

^This is probably not the exact meaning though.

Can anyone help with C option, what does it even mean?
always higher than 90% of population was an argument by roland. Sharon is countering that it is normal. I am still not able to get how it is affecting the argument and reasoning.

Can you guys please help?
GMATRockstar AndrewN

Hello, penco. I think GMATNinja has done a fine job with his treatment of (C) specifically just a few posts above, here. To keep things simple, I will stick to breaking down the language of the answer choice itself, irrespective of the question.


The easiest way I can think to explain what (C) is saying is by using numbers. Say we have 50 people (the number of people from the answer). Each of these 50 people must always have a greater than 90% chance of knowing someone who is unemployed. We could swap out 50 for 100 people or 1 million people, but the phrasing would remain the same. Each individual would still have a greater than 90% chance of knowing someone who was jobless. Now you can ask yourself, is that the assumption at work, given what Sharon says in the passage? (It seems farfetched to me.)

I hope that answers your question. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

GMATCoachBen IanStewart - Is (C) going AGAINST what Roland says (Yellow highlight) ?

The yellow states that 90 % of the country now report that they know someone who is unemployed

(c) says -- well, its actually its 95 %.

Is that the correct interpretation of (c) ?

I was wondering if my interpretation of (c) is accurate.

thank you

To understand this argument, let's take a more straightforward argument.

Sarah: "I read that 80% of people in this city own a smartphone."
John: "Interesting, Sarah. If we randomly survey 20 people in this city, at least 16 will likely own a smartphone."

In this argument, John assumes that the people they survey represent the entire city's population. If the city's population has unique characteristics, John's assumption might not hold.

Now, back to our argument. What are we required to do in this question? We are asked about an assumption in Sharon's argument. What is Sharon's argument? To understand Sharon's argument, let us first understand Roland's point.
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

What is he trying to say? He is trying to highlight the alarming nature of the fact that 90 percent know someone unemployed. By the way, this is a useless way of saying things. For example, On the news, they broadcast that Mr. John, who was employed with company X as CEO, has been fired. 100% of people in the country of 350 million watched the news, and now 100% know someone unemployed. For the same discussion, if a country of 350 million people, just this person is unemployed and by the way 100% of people know, is it alarming in any way? No. But anyway, let's not go there and deviate from the question.

Sharon's argument.
Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So, at any given time, if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will very likely be unemployed.

Can we identify the conclusion and premise of the argument? Because we need assumption. What is an assumption - it's a necessary bridge between premise and conclusion. So, back to the basics first, what is the argument's conclusion? Because if we don't know the conclusion, this will feel like a challenging problem, but if we know, it's comparatively straightforward.

So here we go:
Premise: A normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed.
Conclusion: So, at any given time, if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will likely be unemployed. (It means the fact that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone unemployed is normal)

A simple structure of Sharon's argument is to state some facts and conclude based on those facts. Let's take it a bit further.
Sharon's argument is to state some facts (say she states 5% of people in Chicago are unemployed) and conclude based on those facts (say anywhere in the country, if you know 50 people, one or more will be unemployed). WAIT What? This is ridiculous? How can I conclude for the entire country just based on Chicago?

This is what Sharon smartly did. She assumed that Chicago was representative of the entire United States. This is the assumption: what choice B states? Yes. To make our example work, we must assume that "unemployment is not concentrated in Chicago." Without that assumption, the argument falls apart.

Option elimination -

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded - Sharon's argument. Chicago's average unemployment rate is 5%, so anywhere in the country, if you know 50 people, one or more will be unemployed. Does "normal levels of unemployment rarely exceed" affect the scope of the argument? No. Out of scope.

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population - negate this choice in line with our discussion. Unemployment is normally concentrated in Chicago. It means it's not representative of the country, breaking the conclusion.

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population - It's higher than 90% or lower than 90%. It's irrelevant to Sharon's argument, which alludes to the fact that practically everyone in the country would know someone unemployed. Distortion.

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents - The question scope is limited to Sharon's argument. Does it even talk about Sharon's argument? No. Out of scope. One request: on GMAT, the facts are respected, period.

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics - The question scope is limited to Sharon's argument. Does it even talk about Sharon's argument? No. Out of scope.

By the way, Chicago, known as the windy city, is one of the greatest cities in the US. If you live here, you'll cherish the diverse culture, architecture, and culinary scene.