carlton17 wrote:
Referring to option D, the fact that the foliage in the butterfly's habitat is not completely green directly contradicts the premise in the argument. With this statement added to the argument, the conclusion is no longer logical as well. However, on the GMAT, should we avoid accepting answer choices (especially in weaken/
assumptionhttps://gmatclub.com/forum/po ... postingbox questions) that contradict a premise?
Hi
carlton17,
Though it's often said that the "premise" should be taken as it is provided. I have seen cases where breaking the logicality of the premise too has proven to be the correct answer. So, rather than memorising what can be challenged and what can not be challenged, if one focuses on the argument as a whole, with special attention to the conclusion, one would not need to memorise anything.
Quote:
(D) The foliage in the butterfly's habitat is completely green.
This choice brings in information with respect to the foliage on which the butterfly rests. (D) says that the foliage is entirely green. You wrote above:
carlton17 wrote:
Referring to option D, the fact that the foliage in the butterfly's habitat is not completely green directly contradicts the premise in the argument.
I think you have written a "negated version" of (D). And does the negated version really "contradict" the conclusion that "the scientists must have discovered the butterfly at night"? Maybe there were spaces in the foliage like stems/barks/vines that were not entirely green. But what if these things make up a very small percentage of the foliage? In that case, our conclusion would hold. Compared to negated version (B), "if there is a way for the scientists to detect the butterfly at day", then the conclusion "the scientists must have discovered the butterfly at night" breaks down completely.
Advice: I am not a big fan of the "negation technique" in Assumption type questions. When this works, it works, but I have seen it confusing test takers when applied blindly. A better technique is to not approach CR with a set of formulas. Understand the stimulus as it is presented. Look for logical fallacies or the "jumps" that the author might have taken to reach his/her conclusion. And then use POE to eliminate answer choices.