Student: After the disappointingly uncompetitive volleyball matches of

Though I went for E; I am still not cent percent confident on reasons for A's elimination.

Can some1 pls help.

Rgds,
Dhruva

A is eliminated because the argument says that all the star players should not play in a same team(when the argument says that they should not play together).That does not mean that all the star players are equally distributed.It can be possible that the 3 players are put in one team and the remaining one in any of the other 3 teams.

But for the contention that the resolution has not been fair to be true,E must be the assumption.

Premise: Teacher resolved that the four star players from the winning team would no longer be able to play together.
Conclusion: The teacher split us up into four teams today, but my team does not have a star player on it.
Assumption: Some reason why though divided into 4 teams still a team did not get a star player.

A - Out of focus
B - Out of focus
C - Out of focus
D - Out of focus
E - Yes.
If this is true, explains why a team did not get a star player.
If this is false, premise fails.
So, correct choice is E.

(D) To be satisfyingly competitive, gym class volleyball must feature more than four teams. --> This cannot be the assumption. If anything this weakens the conclusion. The number of teams must be less than or equal to 4 since there are 4 star players. Only then the conclusion holds. Secondly, To be satisfyingly competitive is outside information and is not a must be true condition.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Premise: After the class was split into four teams today, our team lacked a star player.
Conclusion: Our teacher broke her promise that yesterday's four star players would no longer be allowed to play together on team.

The conclusion is valid only if two or more of yesterday's star players are playing together on one of today's teams.

Apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer choice is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.

E, negated:
Not all of yesterday's star players are in gym class today.
Here, at most three of yesterday's star players are in class today, with the result that the other three teams could each have exactly one star player (or even NO star players).
Thus, the argument cannot conclude that two or more star players are playing together on a team today and that the teacher broke her promise.
Since the negation of E invalidates the conclusion, E is an ASSUMPTION: a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold.

The other options, negated:
(A) Skill does not need to be evenly distributed among the teams.
(B) A teacher who breaks his or her promises may still be living up to his or her professional responsibilities.
(C) Volleyball stars are made, not born.
(D) Gym class volleyball does not need to feature more than four teams.

None of these negations has any bearing on whether two or more players are playing together on a team today.


_________________

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.
_________________