Manoj1998 wrote:
GMATNinja can u give a detailed solution for question 1(MY answer was E)
Question #1 is an inference question, we have to pick an answer which can be
logically valid based on the text of the passage. Here are a few examples how we logically concludes from the statements:
Jack has passed the test.We can logically infer that Jack has not failed the test.
I tossed up a coin and a head occurred.We can safely infer that a coin has been tossed and a tail has not occurred.
I went asleep at 8 pm and wake up at 12 pm next day.One can safely conclude that I slept more than 15 hours.
Let's get to the question.
A. human responses to overcrowding vary.We cannot infer it by the help of the text available.
B. the French may have been better positioned to win had they attacked with a smaller force.A lot of text in the passage overall help us to conclude this. The lines in the passage directly and indirectly state this.
a small English force of less than 9,000 troops and archers faced a French army that, by some accounts, numbered 50,000.We can use these lines as support to B
the English won, suffering only modest casualties while delivering devastating losses to the French.The French numbers contributed to overcrowding on the field-a narrow plot of recently ploughed landAnd the conclusion in the last
researchers suspect, a stampede effect took over, as soldiers from behind trampled those caught in front. As a result, researchers now believe that the high French casualties were more likely caused by the crushing and smothering effects of a stampeding crowd rather than the military superiority of English troops.All above lines support B is correct.
C. computers will replace on-the-ground examination in historical research.Passage has not given any surety about future, this option is trying to induct outside information.
D. crowd behavior has evolved in pace with an expanding world population.Same as C: This option invalidly trying to exaggerate the text and extending it scope to the outside of the passage.
E. the English victory at the Battle of Agincourt can be best explained as a matter of luck
Keep one thing in mind, what could be true in the real world doesn't necessarily be true in the GMAT, this option is out of scope. It might be 100% correct that the English have won by just the matter of luck but we can not conclude this because passage has not suggest anything to conclude as such. If text of the argument said that all humans are immortal we are forced to believe (for the sake of the GMAT) that yes all humans are immortal while the fact is totally against it.
Answer: B