|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
19 May 2018, 08:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
testprep11
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!
01 Jul 2018, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
06 Feb 2020, 21:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 ?
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 ?
