This question is grounded in deductive logic.

Premises:
'No trust' means 'No emotional conn'
'No emotional conn' means 'Feeling isolated'

Conclusion:
'Trust' is necessary for 'happiness'

The point here is that we are concluding about trust and happiness but in the premises the link between 'feeling isolated' and 'happiness' is missing. It is a necessary missing premise i.e. an assumption. So we need an option which say 'Feeling isolated' means 'Not happy'. That's when the logic is complete.
Look at the premises now:

Premises:
'No trust' means 'No emotional conn'
'No emotional conn' means 'Feeling isolated'
'Feeling isolated' means 'Not happy'

Conclusion:
'Trust' is necessary for 'happiness'

Now it all makes sense, doesn't it? Hence (A) will be your answer.
_________________

C is a classic trap answer for formal logic (conditional relationship type questions). The statement in C is indeed true and nothing wrong in it. however (C) doesn't bridge the gap and doesn't help to resolve the question - Find the assumption.

Give it another try!
_________________

Both C & E are not the right answers.
_________________

When a question has a strong Formal Logic component, expect a wrong answer to reverse or inverse the logic.


Analyze: The therapist starts off with a claim: Trust is essential to happiness. Using formal logic, this translates to: If you have happiness, then you must have trust. Or, by the contrapositive: If you don’t have trust, then you can’t be happy. The evidence to back this up is a string of formal logic: If you don’t have trust, then you have no meaningful emotional connection; and if you have no meaningful emotional connection, then you feel isolated. This is all good, but the formal logic in the evidence starts with a lack of trust and ends at feeling isolated. The conclusion, on the other hand, says that a lack of trust leads to no happiness. The therapist never makes the connection from isolation to unhappiness. That’s the assumption, as stated in (A).

(A) As stated above

(B) Extreme. The therapist claims that a lack of trust leads to no emotional connection. It can be validly claimed that the therapist also assumes that anyone who has no emotional connections will be unhappy. However, that does not mean that anyone who does have emotional connections will be happy. That inverts the formal logic and doesn’t help connect the evidence to the conclusion.

(C) Irrelevant Comparison. This is per fectly accurate based on the evidence. In fact, it’s the contrapositive of the evidence. However, it fails to connect that evidence to the concept of happiness in the conclusion, so it doesn’t work as an assumption. Remember that an assumption is an unstated piece of information that connects the evidence to the conclusion. This answer restates the evidence in other words—a classic LSAT trap.

(D) Outside the Scope. The assumption is about people who do feel isolated. Adding information about people do don’t feel isolated is irrelevant to the argument.

(E) Irrelevant Comparison. This answer reverses the formal logic in the evidence, but it still doesn’t connect the evidence to the concept of happiness in the conclusion.
_________________

I agree. Chances of seeing such complex formal logic questions in GMAT can be too slim (unless you are doing way too well during the exam). Just treat them as a good practice. GMAT may have very few questions involving sufficient-necessary conditions, but not as complex and tangled as LSAT formal logic questions.
_________________

Actually, I think that this particular thought process might be new to you - that is why you feel its complicated. You can choose to ignore it but it isn't very hard when you get down to it.

Here, check out this OG question and my solution based on the same concept. It is a very useful methodology which is based on something like this:

Premises:
A implies B
B implies C

Conclusion:
A implies D

Now, there is a missing link here: C implies D. That is the assumption (a necessary missing premise). We explicitly discuss deductive logic in our course to give you a clear picture.

a-recent-report-determined-that-although-only-three-percent-97089.html#p823336
_________________

GMATNinja generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354 AshutoshB harishgmat GmatDaddy

This is a pure gem of a question to discuss much advocated negation technique and bridging the gap
Please help me with performing PoE correctly :


Start with a question stem to know what are you looking for?
This is an assumption question.




On a quick glance, I first took all as facts, then I understood I need to have a conclusion in the argument since this is an assumption question.
On a closer read, I substituted for with because and hence the main conclusion becomes:
trust = happiness

Furthermore, premises are
trust = ec
ec = isolation

A: trust
B: EC
C: isolation
D: happiness

Premises mentions A -> B, B ->C , the conclusion is about A -> D and D is nowhere in premises.


Cool, I linked A with D and that's my answer by bridging the gap.

Now, the tough part: to eliminate other answers with similar confidence.
Unfortunately, I could cross out only (C) since the intention is never under the scope
of argument.


I will honestly admit having resorted to negation technique (it is so tempting to perform
negation, when we see quantitative words) but could not get through.
In statements with quantitative terms, we negate numerical terms instead of main verb.
Here is how I negated:


Someone who has a meaningful emotional connection to another human being can be happy


No one who is isolated is happy


No one who is able to trust other people has a meaningful emotional connection to at least one other human being.

I could not decide why B, D or E could not break the conclusion
_________________

adkikani,

This is a justify question. This question form will not appear on test. With justify questions, you do not negate the answer choices. But you do negate for assumption. This difference is critical for you to understand.
_________________