The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflectio

So it just means that racers only interested in innovation technology, right, other stuff that they are no interested, right?~~

Actually the opposite:

Manufacturers think that since the racers use only "Type A" bikes for competition, the innovation will be needed only for "Type A" bikes. However, it may not be true because the racers may demand "Type B" bikes for other purposes than competition; maybe for mountain biking, to give gifts, to train others, for pleasure.

Assumption questions revolve around filling in the logic gap between the premise and the conclusion AND strengthening the conclusion thereby.
On a tie between two choices, negating the correct choice (assumption) will make the conclusion fall apart.

The answer here is C because
Premise: Tech conservatism of bicycle manufac is reflection of demand type.
Premise: Only racers are interested in and willing to pay for innovation
Conclusion: Innov is limited by what authorities accept as [u]standard for racing

What is the logic gap? Premises say that only racers are interested in innov. Conc says that hence, standards accepted by authorities will decide the innov.
The gap is the assumption, i.e., Racers' demands are limited by standards chalked out by authorities!

Hope this helps.

Which of following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

a) The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannnot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.

Wrong:
Argument is not about expanding market or even that of traditional bikes.

b) High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns.

Wrong:
How high-tech bikes are developed is out of scope.

c) Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recoginized as standard for purpose of competition.

Correct (at the very least, it is the best answer):

Negating this kills the argument, because the negation would show that innovation would not be limited by the standards set by the authorities.

d) The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.

Wrong: Different national markets is out of scope.

e) The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.

Wrong: being informed about high-tech bikes is irrelevant

Innovation = Type of demand. Innovation = bicycle Racers Bicycle racers = Standards So: Innovation = Standards

The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet. The only cyclist seriously interested in innovation and willing to pay for it are bicycle racers. Therefore, innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purpose of competition in bicycle races.

Which of following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

(A) The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.
Out of context. We are not talking about cheap market for a bicycle or anything. Here the topic is about innovations adhering to the standards. Probably those innovations might not even come to mass market because they are specifically designed for the professionals.

(B) High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns.
Out of context. We are not even concerned about the manufacturing site for innovation. We are concerned about the type of innovation.

(C) Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.
This answer came through POE because this is not the best assumption according to me. So we have assumed that bikers don't create a good demand for outside the policy and so therefore the company has to follow the guidelines.

(D) The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.
National market: No talks about it. This statement goes against the conclusion. Like a negation test.

(E) The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.
This is a tempting answer. But it's actually a premise and not an assumption. It is one of the reason as to why there aren't any new innovation... because of communication gap. But this is not an assumption.

GMAC official explanation:

Argument Construction

Situation Bicycle racers are the only consumers willing to pay for innovations in bicycle technology. Manufacturers therefore limit innovation to the standards established for competitive bicycle racing.
Reasoning What is being assumed in this argument? This argument implies a connection between what bicycle racers want and what bicycle manufacturers make. The passage states that only racers are interested in innovation and willing to pay for it. Bicycle manufacturers have determined it is not worthwhile to produce innovative bicycles that do not meet official standards. What is the implied interaction? It is reasonable to assume that racers must not be interested in buying models that, while innovative, do not meet official standards for racing; they will pay only for those innovations that are acceptable in competition.
A The argument concerns innovation in bicycle technology. It is not about the entire market for all bicycles, so no assumption is made about traditional bicycles.
B The passage does not discuss where the best innovations are likely to be created, so no assumption about small workshops versus large manufacturers is made.
C Correct. This statement properly identifies the conclusion’s underlying assumption that bicycle racers do not buy bicycles they cannot use for racing.
D The passage does not discuss different national markets; no assumption can be made about them.
E The passage does not indicate what the authorities do or do not know; this statement is extraneous to the passage and cannot be assumed.

[quote="tracyyahoo"]The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet. The only cyclist seriously interested in innovation and willing to pay for it are bicycle racers. Therefore, innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purpose of competition in bicycle races.

Which of following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

(A) The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.

(B) High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns.

(C) Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.

(D) The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.

(E) The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.

OG2012 CR28 P493
How negation technique works here ? I can't understand how the argument fails when I negate choice (C). Please help GMATinsight

Negation of option (C) will be - Bicycle racers generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.

Now if Cycle racers are interested in innovative cycles falling outside the officially recognized bycycles then it will act as an incentive for the manufactureres to manufacture such Cycles, thus Answer must be (C)

rashedBhai

The Logic of Assumption is Simple : 2+3 = 5

The question states that the bicycle manufacturers are technological conservative because
1) They favour the market demand and produce accordingly

Which is clear indication that though Bicycle racers might want technological innovation but the demand is certainly not strong enough outside what authorities limit

therefore clear answer is Option C

The conclusion of the passage is that "innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purpose of competition in bicycle races." To answer the question, we need to find an answer choice that "is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion."

Let's take a look at (E):

The conclusion states that bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for bicycle competitions. Does it matter whether these authorities actually keep informed about innovative designs?

Maybe they do keep informed about all of the latest and greatest innovations, and then accept as standard some portion of those innovations. Maybe they do not keep informed at all, and only accept older bicycle designs. In either case, the limiting factor is what the authorities accept as standard. The author's conclusion is valid regardless of how well informed the authorities who set standards are, so (E) is not an assumption made in drawing the conclusion.

I hope that helps!

The argument is that innovation in bikes is limited by the standard of technology used in races.
Premise: the only cyclists serious in innovation are bike riders
Premise: This bike standards are set by authorities set
background info: tech conservatism of bike manufacturers is a reflection of demand.

The gap between the premise and argument is that bike riders demand to the standard of tech. that is set by authorities for use in bike racing.

A - market expansion has nothing to do with the argument, which concerns innovation
B - The source of innovation (large manufacturing vs small workshops) is irrelevant to the argument
C - Bike racers do not generate demand for innovations that fall outside of what is recognised as standard for competition.

If bike racers do generate demand for innovations outside of the racing standards then innovation is not limited to bike racing standards. SO, the author must assume that this is NOT the case in making his argument.

This Defends the argument. It's a "passive" assumption.

D - Technology conservatism motivations of manufacturers is beyond the scope of the argument as the argument simply deals with innovation in bicycles themselves.

E - Whether authorities keep informed about innovations is irrelevant to whether innovation is limited by the standards authorities set. They're still going to set the standards.

Conclusion: innovation in bike tech is LIMITED by what AUTHOITIES [who are the authorities? Authorities in the competition?] will accept AS STANDARD for purposes of competition in bike races, since the ONLY cyclists seriously interested in innovation and willing to dish out the cash are bike racers

Which of following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

(A) The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.
Story trap. This doesn’t have to hold true. No distinction is made between cheap and high performance.

(B) High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns.
Story trap. This another irrelevant distinction. We concerned about “by what authorities will accept as standard for purposes of competition in bike races” and how the corresponding innovation in bike tech is limited. Where that innovation comes from and developed from (and which place dishes out more innovations) is an irrelevant distinction.

(C) Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.
Money. [only cyclists interested in innovation willing to drop some $$ are bike racers] → [seems like bike racers would have to be complicit with what the authorities set as standards for the bike races to be “willing” to drop some mula] this is a defender assumption. It removes a possible source of attack on the argument. (i.e., if there was a strong demand for innovation that fell outside what is standard for competition then it would definitely weaken the argument. There’s strong demand so why would innovation in bike tech be limited by some standards for dumb bike race?) → [innovation in bike tech is limited by what AUTHORITIES will accept as standard for purposes of competition in bike races]

(D) The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.
Scope creep. We’re not concerned with the manufacturer’s desires. Bike tech could still be limited by what authorities accept as standard (for the purposes of competition), regardless if authorities have some desire or not.

(E) The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.
Scope creep. Bike tech is limited “by what authorities WILL ACCEPT as standard” for competitions. Whether or not they are informed of the latest and greatest doesn’t matter. The conclusion can remain true if they do stay informed and true if they do not stay informed. Therefore, not necessary to reach the conclusion. Ty GMATninja.

This is the solution I came up with­:

Conc: Innovation in bicycle tech is limited to those that follow competition standards.

(A) The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands. - This option states a possible conclusion, i.e., it seems to hypothesize what would be required for expansion of certain markets. However, this doesn't clarify why the innovation in bicycle tech is limited. Drop

(B) High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns. - This answers the question "Where would bicycle innovations come from if at all?" Does that provide th reason for the limitation.. Not really. Drop

(C) Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition - Okay, now we're talking. Now on the face of it, it looks really obvious that this options supports the argument. Let's negate to make sure. "Bicycle racers do generate a strong demand for innovations outside of competitions..." Comparing this sentence with passage, we can immediately see that it breaks the conclusion. Bingo. Keep

(D) The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets. - This answers the question - "Explain the reason for tech conservatism of bicycle manufacturers." Now, if we're careful we can notice firstly, it's not the conclusion and secondly it conflicts with the facts in the passage - we're told that conservatism of bicycle manufacturer was because of the demands placed on them, but we're told here it's because of their desire... Awkward. Drop.

(E) The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design. - Do authorities keep informed of latest innovations in bicycles (presuming there's a magazine or newsletter they can subscribe to)? Whether they do or don't, doesn't affect the fact that innovations would still be limited to benchmarks set by the competition. How? If we negate the statement and cross-check with the conclusion, we can see that authorities can keep informed about the latest design and even incorporate it into the compeition. However, the conclusion will still hold. Drop­