To improve customer relations several big retailers have recently

dear avigutman, AndrewN,MartyTargetTestPrep ,

will you experts will have pre-think on before diving into the options? if not, what will you do ?

as for this assumption question, i did not have any pre-think, then I went to the options, at the end, I picked up D.

Hello. Here is how I would move through this question, including what I would pre-think.

First I read the question: "The argument relies on which of the following as an assumption?"

So I know I'm going to deconstruct an argument and find the assumptions (things that MUST be true for the argument to be true).

Then I deconstruct the argument:

To improve customer relations, several big retailers have recently launched “smile initiatives,” requiring their employees to smile whenever they have contact with customers. These retailers generally have low employee morale, which is why they have to enforce smiling. However, studies show that customers can tell fake smiles from genuine smiles and that fake smiles prompt negative feelings in customers. So the smile initiatives are unlikely to achieve their goal.


So the ultimate conclusion is that "The smile initiatives are unlikely to achieve their goal" meaning "The smile initiatives will not improve customer relations."

The premise is that the employees have low morale, and customers can tell fake smiles from genuine smiles, and fake smiles give people negative feelings.

So I like to think of ways the conclusion could be FALSE even though the premises TRUE. Meaning, maybe the smile initiatives WILL improve customer relations, even though employees have low morale and fake smiles would be bad.

So I have a few thoughts on that front:

--would the smiles be fake? I know the employees have low morale, but maybe they can still smile genuinely. If so, this argument falls apart.
--If the smiles are fake, and cause negative feelings in customers, could the customers... feel bad for the employees and, somehow, that makes customer relations better? (I don't feel great about this one, honestly, but basically, I see that the argument needs to 'fuse' "negative feelings about fake smiles" and "not improved customer relations." If the negative feelings, somehow, DID improve customer relations, the argument falls apart).

So some assumptions are that: Low morale employees would be smiling fakely, and, negative emotions from fake smiles could not somehow improve customer relations.

So I go to the answers with these pre-thoughts:


A) The smile initiatives have achieved nearly complete success in getting employees to smile while they are around customers.

So this means employees are complying by smiling, but does not deal with the questions I have: are the smiles genuine, and/or, are they somehow improving relations?

B) Customers' feelings about fake smiles are no better than their feelings about the other facial expressions employees with low morale are likely to have.

So this one seemed wrong to me at first, but it did seem related to my second assumption, in that it deals directly with how customers feel about fake smiles. So I stuck with it for a moment.

When I negate this answer, (Customers' feelings about fake smiles ARE better than their feelings about other facial expressions employees with low morale are likely to have), I see that this must be correct, and for the basic reasons in my pre-thinking. Fake smiles, it turns out, might be an improvement over grumpy faces. Even if fake smiles cause negative feelings, maybe they cause *LESS* negative feelings than grumpy faces. LESS negative feelings... is improvement! (It might not be as much improvement as the people who force their employees to smile are *hoping* for, but it IS improvement).

C) The feelings that employees generate in retail customers are a principal determinant of the amount of money customers will spend at a retailer.

Money spent is irrelevant to the conclusion about not-improving customer relations.

D) At the retailers who have launched the smile initiatives, none of the employees gave genuine smiles to customers before the initiatives were launched.

Negate the answer. If SOME employees gave genuine smiles before the initiatives were launched, the argument does not fall apart.

This answer seems to justify *why* the bosses came up with the idea of a 'smile initiative,' but it is not required for the author's conclusion: that the initiative will not improve customer relations.

E) Customers rarely, if ever, have a negative reaction to a genuine smile from a retail employee.

Not relevant. Again, might explain why the bosses are doing this initiative (in the hopes their employees can give genuine smiles), but it is not required for the conclusion: that this initiative will not improve customer support.

dear ReedArnoldMPREP
this is fresh for me. I am curious why you think the ways the conclusion could be FALSE?
does this approach apply other types of CR questions, such as weaken, strengthen, even evaluate questions ? how can I know I can apply this way to CR questions?

looking forward your help.

have a nice day.

Yes, this question applies to all "Assumption Family" questions (find the assumption, strengthen, weaken, evaluate, and--I argue--Explain the Discrepancy questions, for which you are told explicitly the conclusion was wrong even though the premises are true). The question type it would not apply to is "Inference" AKA "Draw a conclusion" questions.

Arguments on the GMAT hinge on 'assumptions.' Assumptions have two key features:

1). They are not stated explicitly in the passage

2). They MUST be true for the argument to hold (and if they are FALSE, the argument COLLAPSES).

For these reasons, the most useful question you can ask about an argument is "How could this conclusion be false EVEN WHEN the premises are true?" Once you create a 'world' in which something answers that question, the author MUST be assuming the opposite.

Here are two videos that you'll find helpful. The first is specifically about asking that question, the second is about the assumption family, more broadly.

hi ReedArnoldMPREP
this is fresh for me. I am curious why you think the ways the conclusion could be FALSE?

thanks for your quick response, would you please elaborate further.

I can understand the meaning of assumption:
1). They are not stated explicitly in the passage

2). They MUST be true for the argument to hold (and if they are FALSE, the argument COLLAPSES).

but I haven't gotten , from feature #2 why we can reasoning that Once you create a 'world' in which something answers that question, the author MUST be assuming the opposite.

just for example,

if you don't study hard, you won't get 750 on GMAT.
it is not equal to
if you don't get 750 on GMAT, then you don't study hard.

thanks in advance

This is going to teeter a bit too much toward the LSAT for my liking, but:

"If you don't study hard, you won't get a 750 on the GMAT"

IS equivalent to

"If you get a 750 on the GMAT, then you studied hard."



So, if I have an argument:


"It rained. The street must be wet."

Okay. Well.

If the street is wet (due to rain), then there was no tarp that protected the street from the rain. (because if there was, the street would not be wet).

This is equivalent to:

If there was a tarp that protected the tarp from the rain, the street is NOT wet.



So, the author must assume that there was no tarp. It is a NECESSARY assumption for the argument be true.

So if I have the argument:

"It is raining. The street must be wet."

I can ask "How could the street NOT be wet, even if it is raining?"

"Well, IF there is a tarp protecting the street from the rain, it would NOT be wet. So, for the street to be wet, there must NOT BE a tarp protecting the street from the rain."

Basically the arguments are going to lay out something like: "P therefore Q." And then think of a scenario R (that doesn't contradict P) that would make NOT Q: "But if R then NOT Q." So, we can say "the author MUST assume NOT R." (Since "If R then NOT Q" is equivalent to "If Q then Not R").

hi ReedArnoldMPREP,

appreciate your response.
I have a further question.
if making conclude false can apply assumption family, then why you read the stem first ?

we can read the argument first, and make conclusion false, what we make the false conclusion, say Y, is opposite the assumption.
So, in strengthen questions, the not Y is our answer,
in Weaken questions, the Y is our answer.
in assumption question, Not Y is our answer.

you see, read stem first seems not necessary step 1 on CR questions.

If by 'stem' you mean the QUESTION itself, (i.e. which of the following can strengthen the argument?), I read it first to determine if the question is an ARGUMENT, or an INFERENCE. Most questions WILL be arguments. But for questions that ask you to DRAW A CONCLUSION or MAKE AN INFERENCE, you don't really want to be in the same 'mindset' as you will be when dealing with a 'premise/conclusion.'

hi ReedArnoldMPREP
maybe it is not a good place to ask a question here,

what the different mindsets between arguments that are strengthens weakens assumption and inference questions.

thanks in advance

There are four major types of CR quesitons:

1). "Describe the Role" (Boldface) questions

These are the least common. These questions put in bold words in an argument and ask you what 'role' in the argument the bold words are playing. In these questions, you are looking at an argument, and so will be looking for "Premise" and "Conclusion" in the paragraph.

2). Assumption Family

These questions ask you to find assumptions, strengthen arguments, weaken arguments, and evaluate arguments. If you see a question in this category, you know you are looking at an argument, and so will be looking fro 'Premise' and 'Conclusion' in the paragraph. You will then think about the assumptions that MUST be true for the argument to last.

3). Explain the Discrepancy

These questions give you a story that someone finds surprising, and it's your job to explain how that surprising thing could be true. I actually consider these questions 'weakeners' in disguise, but it's not immediately obvious how. There won't be explicit premise and conclusion in the paragraph (but if you're looking for them, you could find them).

4). Inference Questions

These give you a paragraph and ask you which answer is logically supportable based on that paragraph. In these questions you are not looking for 'premise' and 'conclusion.' Some paragraphs have something like them, but it's not really the point to deal with the argument, so I don't even act like I am.

hi ReedArnoldMPREP
I have studied the video these days,

here are 3 questions are used to move through the assumption questions.
1) what would it mean for the conclusion to be false ?
2) how could that happen, if the premises are true?
3) what assumption must be true to save the argument?

I wonder are you always figure out Q2 ? what will you do if you cannot answer Q2? will you go to options directly if you can't answer Q2 ?

I tried the 3Q - approach to practice my missed assumption questions, sometimes I feel it is helpful, sometimes I can't answer Q2.

appreciate your response .

have a nice day

I think you can find an answer to that in my original response to this post.

When I got to that second question, I asked: "How could customer relations be improved even if fake smiles cause negative responses?"

I wrote this:



I didn't like that answer to question 2. I didn't really think it even really was an 'answer.' The most important part, though, is that I asked the right question: "Do fake smiles that cause negative emotions in customers REALLY mean we can't improve customer relations?" It's a question that seems really hard to answer! How could 'negative emotions' improve customer relations?!?! I couldn't quite figure that out, but I knew it was the right question to ask. And because I asked it so specifically, I recognized in the correct answer choice since it was related to that question. The right answer choice essentially says, "Fake smiles do not cause better reactions in customers than other facial expressions low-morale employees make." Which made me realize a possible ACTUAL answer to my question 2: "Oh, well, maybe fake smiles aren't the BEST face, maybe they aren't even a GOOD face, but if they are a BETTER face for customers to see than the one employees currently have, than customer relations are improved. So this author must assume that fake smiles aren't BETTER than the faces employees currently make."

I hadn't thought about this exact possibility, but by asking the question up front: "Is there ANY WAY fake smiles and the negative emotions the cause could, somehow, IMPROVE customer relations?" I was able to see why the right answer was what it was.

So, my point is **asking the right question** is the really valuable part. If you can come up with answers, that's great, but if you can't you'll still be in the right headspace to the think about the answers.

hi ReedArnoldMPREP, I am back again.
if you read the stem first is to determine the prompt is argument or inference. then will you just scan read / skip read to grasp key words such as support, undermine, evaluate, ? or will you read the whole stem ? if you don't read whole, will you do so after reading prompt? then will you double read the stem ?

To improve customer relations, several big retailers have recently launched “smile initiatives,” requiring their employees to smile whenever they have contact with customers. These retailers generally have low employee morale, which is why they have to enforce smiling. However, studies show that customers can tell fake smiles from genuine smiles and that fake smiles prompt negative feelings in customers. So the smile initiatives are unlikely to achieve their goal.

Analysis: Smile initiative is unlikely to work. Why? Because employees have low morale therefore their smile is fake and the customers can tell fake smiles.

The argument relies on which of the following as an assumption?


A) The smile initiatives have achieved nearly complete success in getting employees to smile while they are around customers.
We are not concerned about whether or not the employees eventually smile or not. The argument says that the employees' smile is fake and that the customers can figure out this fake smile. Discard.

B) Customers' feelings about fake smiles are no better than their feelings about the other facial expressions employees with low morale are likely to have.
Negation: Customers' feelings about fake smiles are better than their feelings about other facial expressions.
Analysis: If customers' feeling about fake smiles is better than their feelings about other, let's say neutral, facial expressions, then even the fake smile can be helpful in making the smile initiative a success. Therefore, if the negation is true, the conclusion falls apart. Keep it.

C) The feelings that employees generate in retail customers are a principal determinant of the amount of money customers will spend at a retailer.
This option shifts the focus from the reasoning behind the smile initiative not working to the implications of smiles. Discard.

D) At the retailers who have launched the smile initiatives, none of the employees gave genuine smiles to customers before the initiatives were launched.
"None" of the employees is quite strong. Also, this option speaks about before the smile initiative was launched. Discard.

E) Customers rarely, if ever, have a negative reaction to a genuine smile from a retail employee.
We are concerned about the reaction to a fake smile, not to genuine smile. Discard.

Therefore, B in the answer.

­Thanks for sharing your reasoning. Truthfully it is still hard for me to accept the ANS B, but it help me with my own version. I hope my post helps others who still look for the right wording to their brain, just like me.
Goal: Improve Customer Relationship by SMILE
How: Customer with low morale are forced to SMILE upon contact.
Conclusion: Plan unlikely to achieve its goal
Premise: Customer can tell Fake Smile apart and it prompts negative feelings
Assumption required: Making sure even if they smile, it wont improve the Customer Relationship
ANS B. Customers’ feelings about fake smiles are no better than their feelings about the other facial expressions employees with low morale are likely to have.
With this maximum impact capped, it keeps the problem at hand. 
SMILE =< Other Facial Expression (OFE)
Cases:
SMILE = OFE : Steady Customer Relationship (No Improvement)
SMILE < OFE : Worsening the Customer Relationship
However:
SMILE > OFE : Improves Customer Relationship
Keep fighting GMAT Fellas!!!

The author is comparing genuine smile with fake smile , and saying that fake smile will compared with genuine smile by the consumers . The assumption of author is that, fake smile isnt better than other facial expressions of the representative