Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 May 2017, 03:39

# TODAY:

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 748 [0], given: 28

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 06:07
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

72% (01:59) correct 28% (01:04) wrong based on 31 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truth
b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend
c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie
d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.
e) One should never break a promise
_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 06:46
I'm feeling D:
dimitri92 wrote:
Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?
The teacher's argument comes down to: you should break your promise to Jeannie in favour of keeping the "truth-telling" promise to me. So I'm asking why are we leaving Jeannie out to dry here teacher? Let's see if any of these answers provide a reason:

a) Most people always tell the truth Doesn't prop up the teacher's reasoning.

b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend Maybe. But "best interest" gets a little out of scope. Maybe it was in Jeannie's best interest to be faking sick (probably was, the tone of this conversation seems more like a reprimand than anything else).

c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie So in this case, we SHOULD have lied to the teacher and kept the promise to Jeannie.

d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones. Here we go. The explicit promise was to Jeannie. The implicit promise is "not to lie." If the teacher feels that breaking the implicit one is "worse" (for whatever reason) then it stands to reason that they'd prefer truth telling to friend-promise-keeping if the two were in conflict. Without this assumption the argument falls apart.

e) One should never break a promise This just confuses everything and leaves you asking which promise to keep (implicit or explicit?)
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 293
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 07:17
dimitri92 wrote:
Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truth >>> Out of scope, we are not discussing what majority of people speak truth or tell a lie
b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend >>> We cannot assume that student telling about jeanie is acting in Jeanie's best interest...
c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie >>> Out of scope...
d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.>>> Correct >>> The implicit promise is: Student talking to teacher....and explicit promise is : student's promise with Jeanie>>> Teacher tells student to break the explicit one...!!
e) One should never break a promise >>> "Never" goes too extreme ...also teacher tells the student to break the promise with Jeanie,if student had made any..

It took me some time..!!
wats the source ??
OA plz.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 748 [0], given: 28

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 07:23
D is the OA ! ...sorry about the earlier post
_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

Last edited by dimitri92 on 26 May 2010, 00:36, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 293
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 07:53
dimitri92 wrote:
Nope. D is not the OA . I chose D too but now I know why its not the OA. Give it one more try. Hint: It is an assumption question so use negation test.

Then B.. No other option is near to argument..
What is the source..??
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 08:05
nverma wrote:
dimitri92 wrote:
Nope. D is not the OA . I chose D too but now I know why its not the OA. Give it one more try. Hint: It is an assumption question so use negation test.

Then B.. No other option is near to argument..
What is the source..??

I dunno about that, since it's never determined if Jeannie is even a friend.

I'd go with A since it seems to mess up this: "But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth" which in this case, is actually an assumption made by the teacher... I'd be more interested in seeing how you go about rejecting D though. I guess it's because of the double occurrence of the word "some," it actually doesn't give you a basis on which to determine what the teacher was thinking (implicit > explicit or the other way around?)
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 446
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 157

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 09:28
dimitri92 wrote:
Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truth
b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend
c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie
d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.
e) One should never break a promise

Ans is D since
The teacher argument is that people make an implicit promise when they enter into a conversation and the teacher states "it is bad to break promises", saying that she means it is not right to break the implicit promise and when the teacher states " you should not tell me that " she means dont break the implicit promise even if u have to compromise the expilicit.

C,E are beyond the scope as consequences or the situations in which promises should be held are not being discussed.

Ok B has to be the answer because option E will act againist both the promises, but B means he has to tell the truth, thereby keeping the implicit promise and acting in tyhe friends best interest.
_________________

Senior Manager
Affiliations: SPG
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 748 [0], given: 28

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 09:47
D is the OA ! ...sorry about the earlier post
_________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

Last edited by dimitri92 on 26 May 2010, 00:36, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

23 May 2010, 10:33
dimitri92 wrote:
The reason I think the OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
E
is because an assumption is strictly needed for the conclusion to be true. In the conclusion, the teacher never asks the student to tell her if Jeannie is sick but merely says " you should not tell me that", thus by not telling the teacher, the student will keep both promises: explicit and implicit.

That's awesome, because it is totally true. The tonality of the statement is very good at making you think that the teacher is asking the student to throw Jeannie under the bus but the Teacher is actually saying to compromise and not lie, nor -

^^^ I started to type that, but then I thought a little more:

If the Student doesn't say boo to the teacher about anything, then the promise is broken to Jeannie.

"I promise to tell the teacher you are home sick"

If that never happens, the promise is technically broken, whether the Teacher is told otherwise or not told at all.

So the assumption really is "Never break an implicit promise" since the Teacher is adamantly saying "break the promise to Jeannie. Do NOT do what you said you would do because it violates the implicit truth making promise crap."
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 943
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 05:34
I dont know if LSAT reasoning is different from that of GMAT, but IMO, definitly E.

Premise 1: You agree that it is bad to break promises. [A broad generalized statement]
Premise 2: On implicit promises and lying.
Premise 3: On explicit promises and telling the truth.

In the end, it is stated that you should not tell...even if you know the real cause.

a) Most people always tell the truth
[No mention of truth in most cases. Incorrect]

b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend
It supports the last premise. Not an assumption. Incorrect]

c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie
Really. Who said that? Incorrect]

d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.
Where in the argument above, any worse case is given which shows. Incorrect]

e) One should never break a promise
Try the negation test:
One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1) and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

[/quote]

dimitri92 wrote:
Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truth []
b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend
c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie
d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.
e) One should never break a promise

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 07:55
ykaiim wrote:
e) One should never break a promise
Try the negation test:
One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1) and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

Your explanation is good but it still doesn't satisfy my interpretation of the argument.

I disagree that the negation "one should break a promise" shatters the [you should not tell...] part. Simply and entirely because the Teacher, in no uncertain terms, tells the student to break a promise. Now, if someone can explain to me how that's an incorrect interpretation then fine. The way I break it down is as follows:

"You should not tell me that"

"that" refers to 'telling the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick"

Therefore: "you should not tell me that Jeannie is home sick"

However, it is also stated: "you promised Jeannie you'd tell me she was home sick" (preceded by "if," making this a hypothetical situation, just for clarity)

Thus the explicit promise is: Student WILL tell the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick.
I consider the promise broken if this event does not occur EXACTLY as stated.
In the sentence the Teacher advises the Student: "You should not tell me that Jeannie is home sick" (inferred, see above).

i.e. You should break your promise to Jeannie.

Therefore the Teacher's reasoning is not contingent on the assumption that "One should NEVER break a promise." Rather, it seems that the Teacher is saying that when faced with conflicting promises (implicit vs explicit) one has to make a decision because you can't keep both (IF YOU assume that the implicit promise even exists). I feel that Teacher's argument is heavily based on assumptions surrounding the strength of implicit vs explicit promises and/or the existence of implicit promises all together (i.e. Option D or possibly A). If I were a cheeky student I'd be like "yeahhh I never made any implicit promise to you... at all. So your argument sucks." OR I'd think: "What if I'm more loyal to Jeannie than you? I'd rather break the implicit "no lie" promise to you than break my explicit promise to Jeannie. Your argument sucks."

If someone can dismantle that line of reasoning I'll happily (and admittedly, gratefully) concede the point.

Now if E) had actually been the negation "One can sometimes break promises" and the negation had been "One can NEVER break a promise" then I'd be singing E to the high heavens.
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 08:10
ykaiim wrote:
One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1)

I also disagree here.

Negated E): One should break a promise (you are correct here)
Premise 1: You agree that it is bad to break promises (okay)

But how does Negated E) cancel/run counter to Premise 1?

Just because something is bad doesn't mean by definition that you shouldn't ever do it.

Consider:

Statement: One should kill a human being
Premise: You agree that is bad to kill human beings

Does the Statement, if true, conflict with the premise? Well:
Scenario: Any self defense situation where you are in mortal danger.

My point: there are situations in which you can be expected to (and arguably, "should") commit an act that is generally considered and agreed upon to be "bad."

It seems to me, in our example, that the Teacher sets up the whole "you should never... unless" scenario.
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 943
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 08:22
First, give me some KUDOS...hehehe
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 08:37
ykaiim wrote:
First, give me some KUDOS...hehehe

Haha, I'll gladly give you kudos if you can tell me where my reasoning above is faulty, because this is kind of bugging me.
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 943
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 11:21
As per the Premise (3), the student was to lie (as per the promise with Jeannie) but he revealed the real truth (she is well) to the teacher and broke the promise.
Now, teacher told her not to tell the real truth, which is just the Premise (2) [lying is the breaking of that promise]

So, when you add premise (1) and above reasoning then you will find that once a promise is made, whether implicit or explicit, it is to be kept. This is what E states.

Now, to confirm our reasoning, let's try the negation test on E:
One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1), above reasoning and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

As per your question: The conclusion doesnt falls apart.
Read closely. If one lies, then there is no need to say:
1. You agree that it is bad to break promises
2. Why the teacher will be asking the student not to tell her the real truth. She may just accept it, because Jeannie might be the Principal's daughter . There can be many reasons.

dalmba wrote:
ykaiim wrote:
e) One should never break a promise
Try the negation test:
One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1) and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

Your explanation is good but it still doesn't satisfy my interpretation of the argument.

I disagree that the negation "one should break a promise" shatters the [you should not tell...] part. Simply and entirely because the Teacher, in no uncertain terms, tells the student to break a promise. Now, if someone can explain to me how that's an incorrect interpretation then fine. The way I break it down is as follows:

"You should not tell me that"

"that" refers to 'telling the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick"

Therefore: "you should not tell me that Jeannie is home sick"

However, it is also stated: "you promised Jeannie you'd tell me she was home sick" (preceded by "if," making this a hypothetical situation, just for clarity)

Thus the explicit promise is: Student WILL tell the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick.
I consider the promise broken if this event does not occur EXACTLY as stated.
In the sentence the Teacher advises the Student: "You should not tell me that Jeannie is home sick" (inferred, see above).

i.e. You should break your promise to Jeannie.

Therefore the Teacher's reasoning is not contingent on the assumption that "One should NEVER break a promise." Rather, it seems that the Teacher is saying that when faced with conflicting promises (implicit vs explicit) one has to make a decision because you can't keep both (IF YOU assume that the implicit promise even exists). I feel that Teacher's argument is heavily based on assumptions surrounding the strength of implicit vs explicit promises and/or the existence of implicit promises all together (i.e. Option D or possibly A). If I were a cheeky student I'd be like "yeahhh I never made any implicit promise to you... at all. So your argument sucks." OR I'd think: "What if I'm more loyal to Jeannie than you? I'd rather break the implicit "no lie" promise to you than break my explicit promise to Jeannie. Your argument sucks."

If someone can dismantle that line of reasoning I'll happily (and admittedly, gratefully) concede the point.

Now if E) had actually been the negation "One can sometimes break promises" and the negation had been "One can NEVER break a promise" then I'd be singing E to the high heavens.

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

25 May 2010, 12:54
I'm afraid I'm still not following you. It'd be very helpful if you were to go to my post where I outline my reasoning and show me exactly where it goes astray. Also, in your explanation here I have the following points to contend:
ykaiim wrote:
As per the Premise (3), the student was to lie (as per the promise with Jeannie) but he revealed the real truth (she is well) to the teacher and broke the promise. <<< "but he revealed the real truth" ?? When does this happen in the statement?

Now, teacher told her not to tell the real truth <<< i.e. the Teacher told him/her to Lie -- i.e. the Teacher told he/she to break an implicit promise. , which is just the Premise (2) [lying is the breaking of that promise]

So, when you add premise (1) and above reasoning then you will find that once a promise is made, whether implicit or explicit, it is to be kept << except you just said that the Teacher told the student to lie. Implicit promise: is to be broken, not kept.. This is what E states.

What makes this even more confusing is that you seem to be arguing that the Teacher was encouraging the student to lie (quoting you: "Now, teacher told her not to tell the real truth") whereas I'm seeing it as the Teacher telling the student to avoid lying via the statement "you should not tell me that," where "that" is "Jeannie is home sick," thereby betraying Jeannie and breaking the explicit promise. EITHER WAY a promise is broken so E can't work.

Now, to confirm our reasoning, let's try the negation test on E:
One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1), above reasoning and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

As per your question: The conclusion doesnt falls apart.
Read closely. If one lies, then there is no need to say:
1. You agree that it is bad to break promises
2. Why the teacher will be asking the student not to tell her the real truth. She may just accept it, because Jeannie might be the Principal's daughter . There can be many reasons.
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 05:12
dimitri92 wrote:
D is the OA ! ...sorry about the earlier post

Thank goodness. I was about to go crazy and start boycotting the LSAT prep
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 293
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 05:20
dimitri92 wrote:
D is the OA ! ...sorry about the earlier post

Thanks, i was puzzled when u said OA is not D..!!
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 943
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1329 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 08:35
D

What on earth led to say a worse case?
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 119
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

26 May 2010, 12:36
ykaiim wrote:
D

What on earth led to say a worse case?

It was implied, because when you dismantle the argument, the Teacher essentially says: break the explicit promise, but keep the implicit one. Since the Teacher did not provide an opinion as to whether or not that was always to be the case, it is implied that the Teacher assumes that "some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones." Otherwise the Teacher would not have said what they said!
Re: Implicit Promises   [#permalink] 26 May 2010, 12:36

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 A teacher told the students in her class 1 10 May 2017, 04:59
1 Teachers should not do anything to cause their students 1 13 Apr 2017, 23:16
6 Teachers are effective only when they help their students become indep 6 17 Dec 2016, 01:35
3 I agree with OA what do you think? Environmentalist: The use 8 18 Sep 2016, 01:48
6 A teacher has proposed requiring all students in her 16 21 Jun 2014, 21:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by