Sally: I cannot study at a university where there is an alcohol proble

Question Type: Assumption

Sally's Premise: She cannot study at a university where there is an alcohol problem.

Sally's Conclusion: She will have to transfer to another university where there are no fraternities, unless her current university does something about the alcohol problem.

Argument Analysis: Sally will transfer to a university where there are no fraternities which means Sally either knows or assumes it for a fact that fraternities at her university have something to do with the alcohol problem at her university. Hence she will transfer to another university where there are no fraternities, assuming that No Fraternity = No alcohol problem, in turn implying that there could be universities with No alcohol problem.

Yolanda's Argument's Analysis : Yolanda, counter's Sally's argument by justifying that there is no relation between Alcohol problem & fraternities at a university. She states that "Alcohol problems exist at all universities, including those where there are no fraternities", hence there are actually no universities with No Alcohol problem & breaks Sally's assumption for No fraternity = No alcohol problem.

Answer is E. Yolanda's Argument gives us solid clues to Sally's assumption. Negation of E, is " There are no universities with no alcohol problems"

Although i think we don't need to analyse Yolanda's argument to arrive at Sally's assumption, since the answer choices are pretty simple.


Just my 2 cents.


Thanks,
GyM

adkikani, you've got it!

Sally wants to transfer to a university where there are no fraternities to avoid alcohol problems. But if there are NO universities WITHOUT alcohol problems, she can never get what she wants. In other words, there will be no satisfactory university to which she can transfer. (Unrelated: this question is making me thirsty.)

You're also correct in realizing that Yolanda's argument does not impact the assumption. There are two questions about this passage in the LSAT PrepTest, and Yolanda's argument is relevant to the other question.

[Is it required to consider Yolanda's conversation while attempting this Q?


There are no universities that have no alcohol problems. So Sally is basically day-dreaming
and conclusion ie - Fraternities cause alcohol issues - falls apart.[/quote]
, you've got it!

Sally wants to transfer to a university where there are no fraternities to avoid alcohol problems. But if there are NO universities WITHOUT alcohol problems, she can never get what she wants. In other words, there will be no satisfactory university to which she can transfer. (Unrelated: this question is making me thirsty.)

You're also correct in realizing that Yolanda's argument does not impact the assumption. There are two questions about this passage in the LSAT PrepTest, and Yolanda's argument is relevant to the other question.[/quote]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Thanks for the explanation GMATNinja !!

But for questions like these (conversational format) do we even look at the second or first conversation if the question directly refers to a specific conversation (1st (Sally's) here). Should we go ahead and answer the question by referring to the conversation specified in the question itself or is it still advisable to go through the 2nd (other) conversation ?

Please can you shed some light on above ?


Thanks
Saurabh

Need help for option B)
Negation of B :
(B) Something will be done about the alcohol problem at Sally’s university. : If something will be done about the alcohol problem then she will not have to transfer to other universities. So the conclusion collapses.

Why is B wrong?

guptakashish02

That something may or may not be enough for the alcohol problem to be eradicated from the University.

It can also happen that after that 'something' the alcohol issue might go away for few months but there's a possibility that it might again and plague the University. So option 'B' is not giving us any definite answer.

Hope this helps


Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device

Sorry, I'm ridiculously late to the party here, but just in case somebody has the same question as Saurabh: as with all verbal questions, you should fully read and digest all portions of the passage, and understand how they relate to each other. There's no way to know for sure whether the second argument relates to the question – perhaps indirectly – unless you've read and understood the second argument.

In other words: failing to read parts of ANY critical reasoning passage is probably a bad idea, even in these “conversation” formats.

As described in our CR guide for beginners, it helps to start by thinking about the logical structure of CR passages. The same applies to these "conversation" questions, except that you'll have to think about the conclusion/logic/argument for each person in the conversation.

I hope this helps!

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.