Last visit was: 20 May 2025, 13:31 It is currently 20 May 2025, 13:31
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 101,574
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 93,572
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 101,574
Kudos: 725,806
 [142]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
134
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 1,465
Own Kudos:
4,574
 [22]
Given Kudos: 141
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,465
Kudos: 4,574
 [22]
16
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
genericUser
Joined: 31 Jan 2022
Last visit: 22 Dec 2023
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
80
 [6]
Given Kudos: 35
Location: Italy
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.9
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
Posts: 112
Kudos: 80
 [6]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
sram1496
Joined: 22 Nov 2021
Last visit: 05 Aug 2024
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
6
 [1]
Given Kudos: 131
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V39
GPA: 4
WE:General Management (Education)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V39
Posts: 7
Kudos: 6
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I didnt understand how option E can be eliminated,If option E is negated then it can break the conclusion
User avatar
Sonia2023
Joined: 20 Feb 2022
Last visit: 12 Nov 2024
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
22
 [2]
Given Kudos: 88
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Other
Posts: 61
Kudos: 22
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sram1496
I didnt understand how option E can be eliminated,If option E is negated then it can break the conclusion

If you read the stimulus, it says that the corporation is requesting a split of the subsidy which means the govt will definitely receive more subsidy than it shares with the corp so this is just the repetition of one of the premises and thus can be eliminated.
User avatar
mcelroytutoring
Joined: 10 Jul 2015
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 1,202
Own Kudos:
2,576
 [3]
Given Kudos: 282
Status:Expert GMAT, GRE, and LSAT Tutor / Coach
Affiliations: Harvard University, A.B. with honors in Government, 2002
Location: United States (CO)
Age: 45
GMAT 1: 770 Q47 V48
GMAT 2: 730 Q44 V47
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
GMAT 4: 730 Q48 V42 (Online)
GRE 1: Q168 V169
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 4: 730 Q48 V42 (Online)
GRE 1: Q168 V169
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 1,202
Kudos: 2,576
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let’s try to unpack this difficult, poorly-written GMAT Focus Critical Reasoning question.

Imagine that we run the provincial government. The national government pays us a subsidy for every long-distance call that comes into our region. Hence, the more calls that pass through our region, the more money we make.

Right now we have a good arrangement—but perhaps not enough calls are being made: there is (likely) a charge for such calls in many locations. When the corporation offers to make all long-distance calls "going into the province" free in exchange for 50% of subsidies, this could make financial sense for the province if there is an over 100% increase in such calls, due to the fact that they are not free in many places (but not necessarily in the province itself...more on this in the next paragraph). We would be giving away 50% of our subsidies, but calls would perhaps more than double, resulting in increased profits.

Choice A is not a necessary assumption—but it’s awfully close, and vague in its wording: what exactly qualifies as "long-distance telephone service IN the province?" (emphasis mine). I'm sure many would define this as any call going THROUGH the province, but I believe that GMAC defines it specifically as calls ORIGINATING in the province, which leaves an open "loophole" for calls originating elsewhere.

Start with the assumption negation technique: the negation of “at least some” is NONE. If without the plan, there were already NO CHARGES in the province FOR LONG DISTANCE CALLS, then why would we offer to split the subsidy with the government—right? They have nothing to offer the province other than free calls, which the province already has, and thus the number of calls FROM THE PROVINCE would not increase.

However, there is also a key issue at play here: the long-distance calls that are routed THROUGH the province, from point A to point B. Remember, it’s a rural province, so it’s not necessary that some long-distance calls cost money IN THE PROVINCE for the plan to make sense, because there are many other geographical areas at play here, presumably with much larger populations, that are not mentioned at all. Perhaps it’s those other places where the long-distance calls cost money, and where the corporation’s plan to make those calls free would make a significant difference in the number of calls routed THROUGH the province.

Ultimately, if choice A did not say "in the province," then it would be a great answer. However, there are many other places OUTSIDE the province where long-distance calls could increase with the corporation's plan to make these calls free.

Choice B is a necessary assumption for the argument. A "rural province" is by nature small in population, so there would not be enough of an increase in calls IN the province for this arrangement to make sense. However, if the subsidy applied not just to calls made FROM the province, but also THROUGH the province, then the number of long-distance calls could increase exponentially, and thus the subsidies and profits.

Choice E: Profit = Revenue - Expenses. Thus, profit simply means making more than you spend, and we have no idea how much the province actually spends for costs related to running the telephone service.

In addition, the province's choosing to share the government subsidy 50/50 with the corporation is technically not an expense. Read the stem again carefully—the province is not paying the corporation anything out of pocket; it’s only splitting the government subsidy, which is technically INCOME, not EXPENSES.
User avatar
tinbq
Joined: 04 Nov 2016
Last visit: 26 May 2024
Posts: 121
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 599
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.12
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 121
Kudos: 24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja,

Would you please shed some light on why A is not correct? I'm confused. Is it because the choice includes the extreme word 'all'? Thank you.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 17 May 2025
Posts: 2,909
Own Kudos:
8,309
 [3]
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,909
Kudos: 8,309
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tinbq

No, the word "all" is not a problem. Answer choice A doesn't matter, because it doesn't tell us anything about the possibility of profits if the plan is enacted. It just says that if the plan is NOT enacted, there wouldn't be any free long distance calls. That doesn't give us any information about what difference the plan would make, or how profitable either arrangement would be.
avatar
MT1302
Joined: 10 Jan 2023
Last visit: 05 Dec 2024
Posts: 95
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 36
Location: India
Posts: 95
Kudos: 523
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
MartyMurray
To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province, the national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province. A corporation has offered to base a national long-distance telephone service in the province, allowing long-distance calls to be made without any charge to the callers, if the provincial government splits its subsidy with the corporation. The corporation argues that since all calls would be routed through the province, the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement.

The corporation's prediction about the effects its plan would have, if adopted, relies on which of the following assumptions?


The corporation's prediction is the following:

the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement

The reasoning for that prediction is that the national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province. So, by basing a national long-distance telephone service in the province and thus causing many long-distance calls to be routed into the province, the corporation will cause a large volume of subsidies to be paid to the provincial government.

The correct answer will be an assumption that the corporation has relied on in making the prediction.

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

What this choice says seems plausible. However, we are not looking for a plausible statement. We are looking for an assumption on which the prediction relies, and the prediction could be correct even if this choice is not true.

After all, even if it is the case that, without the plan, SOME long-distance telephone service in the province would NOT involve at least some charges to callers, the plan of collecting the subsidies by routing calls into the province could still be profitable for the provincial government.

Eliminate.

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

Notice that the plan is the following:

A corporation has offered to base a national long-distance telephone service in the province .... The corporation argues that since all calls would be routed through the province, the corporation will cause a large volume of subsidies to be paid to the provincial government.

We see that the plan involves calls "routed through the province." So, for the plan to work, subsidies must be paid on calls routed through the province.

So, if this choice is not true and the national government's subsidy would apply ONLY for calls made to phones in the province, then arrangement will not be profitable for the provincial government.

Thus, this choice is assumption on which the prediction relies.

(I personally don't really like this CR question because I don't think the way it works is very logical. I mean this "correct" answer is basically the assumption that the corporation has not misunderstood what "pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province" means. Normally, a assumption in a CR question is a key part of the argument that is understood but not stated. In this case, the assumption is basically that the corporation is not clueless about what's going on. At the same time, this choice is the only one that works at all. So, this question is gettable.)

Keep.

C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province.

The corporation is probably assuming what this choice says in coming up with the plan. However, we are not looking for something that is simply an assumption the corporation is making. We are looking for an assumption the prediction relies on, and the prediction does not rely on this choice.

After all, if this choice were not true, and the provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation EVEN IF doing so would NOT yield significant profits for the province, the plan as outlined would still result in the predicted outcome that the provincial government would profit greatly.

The prediction is about what would occur if the corporation's plan were implemented, not about what the provincial government is "interested in" doing. The provincial government could be interested in doing something that would not be profitable, but that fact would not affect what the outcome of this particular plan would be.

Eliminate.

D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller.

Notice that the corporation's plan is to allow long-distance calls to be made "without any charge to the callers."

Thus, if this choice were true, the plan would not work at all since a fixed percentage of no charge would be no subsidy.

Eliminate.

E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation.

This choice is tricky because it mentions an aspect of the plan. The plan does involve the province receiving more from the subsidy than it pays the corporation.

Notice, however, that the corporation's prediction could could be correct even if what this choice says is not true.

After all, if this choice were not true, and the arrangement would be profitable for the province even if the province DID NOT receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation, then the prediction that the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement would still be correct.

So, the prediction does not rely on this choice being true.

Eliminate.

The correct answer is (B).
­Hello MartyMurray Sir,

Kindly share your views on how should I negate answer choice B .
What I know is that you can negate only one piece of the answer choice. So, I am reading this sentence after negating like this :

The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

But this sentence is not making any sense to me.
User avatar
MartyMurray
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 1,465
Own Kudos:
4,574
 [2]
Given Kudos: 141
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 1,465
Kudos: 4,574
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Gangadhar111990
­Hello MartyMurray Sir,

Kindly share your views on how should I negate answer choice B .
What I know is that you can negate only one piece of the answer choice. So, I am reading this sentence after negating like this :

The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

But this sentence is not making any sense to me.
Here's (B).

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

In Critical Reasoning, we have to be ready to override with logic any rules that we think work all the time but may not work in some cases.

In this case, the rule that, to negate a choice, we must change only one part doesn't quite make sense since, in this case, the "not only ... but" structure connects two parts of the choice.

So, we can adjust that rule to make it that we must negate only one key aspect of the choice even if, in doing so, we change two parts of the choice.

Choice (B) says that the subsidy would apply "not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province."

We see that the point is that the subsidy would apply to both types of calls, not to only one type. So, to negate the choice, we have to change both parts to express that the subsidy would apply only to one type and not to the second.

Thus, negated, (B) is the following:

B. The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, and not to some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.­­
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 15,981
Own Kudos:
73,211
 [3]
Given Kudos: 470
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,981
Kudos: 73,211
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
To facilitate development of telephone service in a rural province, the national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province. A corporation has offered to base a national long-distance telephone service in the province, allowing long-distance calls to be made without any charge to the callers, if the provincial government splits its subsidy with the corporation. The corporation argues that since all calls would be routed through the province, the provincial government would profit greatly from this arrangement.

The corporation's prediction about the effects its plan would have, if adopted, relies on which of the following assumptions?

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province.

D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller.

E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation.­
­The national government pays the provincial government a subsidy for each long-distance call going into the province, i.e. going to the phones in the province. (to help in the development of phone services in the rural area). So if there are more phones in the province, more calls will come in and hence the provincial government will get more subsidy. 

A corporation has come up with the following plan for the provincial government:
- We will base a national long-distance telephone service in the province (there will be phones in the province through which national calls will be routed). Callers will not have to pay for long-distance calls. (Do they have to pay currently? We don't know.)
- All calls would be routed through the province (since it will have a national long-distance telephone service base)
- Then the provincial government will make a lot more money (due to lots of calls that will they will get on the phones of the national service base)
- So the provincial government should split the subsidy money with us. 

What is an assumption? What needs to be true for the plan to work?

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

It is not necessary that without the plan, all long distance telephone service in the province should involve at least some charges. There could be some  calls that are  free even without the plan or perhaps many calls are free, we don't know. The plan is offering free calls to callers. It doesn't mean that currently they are charged. 

B. The national government's subsidy would apply not only for calls made to phones in the province, but to at least some long-distance calls that are merely routed through the province.

It is necessary that the subsidy should be applicable to at least some long distance calls that are just routed through the province. Only then will the national base installed in the province will lead to extra income for the provincial govt. If no routing calls are provided subsidy then the national base will not add to the subsidy the provincial govt receives. 

Negate (B): The national government's subsidy would apply only for calls made to phones in the province, not to routed calls. 
The national base will bring  it no extra subsidy amount. Plan fails.

C. The provincial government would be interested in splitting its subsidy with the corporation only if doing so would yield significant profits for the province.

The carrot provided by the plan is significant profits for the province. It is not necessary that this is the only thing that will make them interested in the plan. 

D. The national government's subsidy for any long-distance call into the province is calculated as a fixed percentage of the charge to the caller.

This statement itself breaks the plan. Hence it cannot be the assumption of a plan (something necssary for plan to work). If the subsidy is a percenatge of chareg to caller and the company plans to not charge anything from the caller, then there will be no subsidy amount for these calls through the national base. 

E. In order for the arrangement to be profitable for the province, the province must receive more from the increased subsidy than it pays the corporation.­

This is not necessarily true. We don't know what will make the arrangement profitable for the province (the people and the provincial government together). Say if because of the national base, people get to make free calls for which they need to pay currently, then even if the province pays more to the corporation but receives less 'increased subsidy', the arrangement could be profitable for the province as a whole.
Ignore.

Answer (B)­
User avatar
HarshavardhanR
Joined: 16 Mar 2023
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 348
Own Kudos:
311
 [5]
Given Kudos: 53
Status:Independent GMAT Tutor
Affiliations: Ex - Director, Subject Matter Expertise at e-GMAT
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 348
Kudos: 311
 [5]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
My two cents

Crux of the Argument:

- For every long-distance call that "goes into" the province, the provincial government gets a subsidy.
- A corporation offers to set up a long-distance telephone service within the province.
- The corporation will not make money from the callers (users).
- Instead, it wants a piece of the above subsidy. For example, a 50-50 split of the subsidy amount.
- The corporation argues that because all calls will be routed through the province, the provincial government would make great profit from this deal.

Choice B: Here is a visual to help understand this. The point is that if choice B is not true, then the government will not receive any extra subsidy for "merely routed" calls, and at the same time, it will have to split the subsidy it gets for regular inbound calls with the corporation.




Hope this helps!
Harsha

Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-j5o39v9w.png
GMAT-Club-Forum-j5o39v9w.png [ 251.73 KiB | Viewed 1371 times ]
User avatar
MalachiKeti
Joined: 01 Sep 2024
Last visit: 27 Jan 2025
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 143
Kudos: 57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun what will be negation of statement A and why can't it be the answer?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,041
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MalachiKeti
AjiteshArun what will be negation of statement A and why can't it be the answer?
Hi MalachiKeti,

Here's option A:
Bunuel
A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.­
"Involving at least some charges" just means that the services aren't free, so we can look at A like this:

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would be chargeable.­

The negation of this is:

!A. Without the plan, not all long-distance telephone service in the province would be chargeable.­

The company thinks that its free service will be very profitable for the provincial government. They're counting on ~a significantly larger volume of long-distance calls ("all calls"). They're also counting on the national government to pay money even for calls that don't terminate in the province (and therefore don't really "facilitate development of telephone service" in the province).

Given that the province is being given subsidies to facilitate development of telephone service, the company probably wouldn't be too worried about existing or possible "without the plan" long-distance telephone service within the province, even if some of that is free.
User avatar
MalachiKeti
Joined: 01 Sep 2024
Last visit: 27 Jan 2025
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 143
Kudos: 57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have checked the video just a confusion why couldn't we negate with - Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in provice would involve no charges AjiteshArun
AjiteshArun
MalachiKeti
AjiteshArun what will be negation of statement A and why can't it be the answer?
Hi MalachiKeti,

Here's option A:
Bunuel
A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.­
"Involving at least some charges" just means that the services aren't free, so we can look at A like this:

A. Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would be chargeable.­

The negation of this is:

!A. Without the plan, not all long-distance telephone service in the province would be chargeable.­

The company thinks that its free service will be very profitable for the provincial government. They're counting on ~a significantly larger volume of long-distance calls ("all calls"). They're also counting on the national government to pay money even for calls that don't terminate in the province (and therefore don't really "facilitate development of telephone service" in the province).

Given that the province is being given subsidies to facilitate development of telephone service, the company probably wouldn't be too worried about existing or possible "without the plan" long-distance telephone service within the province, even if some of that is free.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,041
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MalachiKeti
I have checked the video just a confusion why couldn't we negate with - Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in provice would involve no charges AjiteshArun
That's a great question. We should think of the without bit as setting the conditions under which the main statement applies. For example:

1. {Without fuel}, {the car will stop}.

Here we are exploring what happens under the condition "without fuel" (we're saying "the car will stop"). The key is to remember that we are asserting this under the condition "without fuel". If it helps, we can read that statement like this:

2. {If the car doesn't have any fuel}, {it will stop}.

There are multiple situations that could arise here:
S1a. !Fuel | Stop
S1b. !Fuel | !Stop

S2a. Fuel | Stop
S2b. Fuel | !Stop

The original statement was exploring what happens in the absence of fuel (S1a). The negation would not be (S2b). The negation of (S1a) would be the opposite of what happens in the absence of fuel (S1b).
User avatar
MalachiKeti
Joined: 01 Sep 2024
Last visit: 27 Jan 2025
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 143
Kudos: 57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey AjiteshArun still slightly confused on how this compares with our Q


According to your video if we have both verb and quantifier to negate - we go ahead with negating quantifier/modifier

So if i have to breakdown the statement
Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

Without the plan - Clause so ignore
all - candidate 1 for quantifier
would involve - verb in presence of quantifiers so ignore
at least some charges - candidate 2 for quantifier

This gives us two options to negate

One your way -
Without the plan, NOT all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

Implication: Some calls will involve some charges, Some calls with involve no charges

My way -
Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve NO charges to callers.

Implication: All calls will involve no charges

I am not able to apply your example here.
AjiteshArun
MalachiKeti
I have checked the video just a confusion why couldn't we negate with - Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in provice would involve no charges AjiteshArun
That's a great question. We should think of the without bit as setting the conditions under which the main statement applies. For example:

1. {Without fuel}, {the car will stop}.

Here we are exploring what happens under the condition "without fuel" (we're saying "the car will stop"). The key is to remember that we are asserting this under the condition "without fuel". If it helps, we can read that statement like this:

2. {If the car doesn't have any fuel}, {it will stop}.

There are multiple situations that could arise here:
S1a. !Fuel | Stop
S1b. !Fuel | !Stop

S2a. Fuel | Stop
S2b. Fuel | !Stop

The original statement was exploring what happens in the absence of fuel (S1a). The negation would not be (S2b). The negation of (S1a) would be the opposite of what happens in the absence of fuel (S1b).
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,041
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,041
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MalachiKeti
This gives us two options to negate

One your way -
Without the plan, NOT all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

Implication: Some calls will involve some charges, Some calls with involve no charges

My way -
Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve NO charges to callers.

Implication: All calls will involve no charges

I am not able to apply your example here.
You're almost there. The only thing left for us to lock down is the percentage of free providers we want to commit to.

The original statement is "{all} paid" (or "{100%} paid"). Now think about the set of options that is NOT "{100%} paid". It has a couple of elements: (a) "{0%} paid" and (b) "{more than 0% AND less than 100%} paid". The correct negation must cover both (a) and (b).

Now take a look at your statement: "{all} free". This means "{0%} paid", so we've covered (a). However, we've left out (b). To include both (a) and (b), we can say something like "{not all} paid". Another (equivalent) version of that is "{at least one} free".
User avatar
MalachiKeti
Joined: 01 Sep 2024
Last visit: 27 Jan 2025
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 99
Posts: 143
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun I cannot thank you enough!

Finally had a light bulb moment.

Assume there are 100 candidates

100% candidates will involve atleast some charge.
Equivalent to:
100 Candidates has to pay something.( Hey! All 100 of you have to pay something, no freeloaders!)

[We don't care how much they are paying could be 1,2,3...1000$. As long as they are paying something(whatever the bill is) we are fine etc]

1)So the negation NOT ALL 100 have to pay something. (Some of you can be freeloaders! That includes both the scenarios where all of u can be freeloaders or some of you can be freeloaders basically 0-99 people)
Makes sense.

VS
2)ALL 100 of you have to pay nothing. (We are not creating logically opposite anymore! Even if 50 people pay nothing but rest 50 pay something, it still negates my first statement, but that case is not considered here)

AjiteshArun
MalachiKeti
This gives us two options to negate

One your way -
Without the plan, NOT all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve at least some charges to callers.

Implication: Some calls will involve some charges, Some calls with involve no charges

My way -
Without the plan, all long-distance telephone service in the province would involve NO charges to callers.

Implication: All calls will involve no charges

I am not able to apply your example here.
You're almost there. The only thing left for us to lock down is the percentage of free providers we want to commit to.

The original statement is "{all} paid" (or "{100%} paid"). Now think about the set of options that is NOT "{100%} paid". It has a couple of elements: (a) "{0%} paid" and (b) "{more than 0% AND less than 100%} paid". The correct negation must cover both (a) and (b).

Now take a look at your statement: "{all} free". This means "{0%} paid", so we've covered (a). However, we've left out (b). To include both (a) and (b), we can say something like "{not all} paid". Another (equivalent) version of that is "{at least one} free".
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 20 May 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,041
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MalachiKeti
AjiteshArun I cannot thank you enough!

Finally had a light bulb moment.

Assume there are 100 candidates

100% candidates will involve atleast some charge.
Equivalent to:
100 Candidates has to pay something.( Hey! All 100 of you have to pay something, no freeloaders!)

[We don't care how much they are paying could be 1,2,3...1000$. As long as they are paying something(whatever the bill is) we are fine etc]

1)So the negation NOT ALL 100 have to pay something. (Some of you can be freeloaders! That includes both the scenarios where all of u can be freeloaders or some of you can be freeloaders basically 0-99 people)
Makes sense.

VS
2)ALL 100 of you have to pay nothing. (We are not creating logically opposite anymore! Even if 50 people pay nothing but rest 50 pay something, it still negates my first statement, but that case is not considered here)
Excellent! It does feel good when it comes together. Keep it up.
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7307 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
233 posts