Editorial: The measures taken by our government to force Corollia to p

Question

Editorial: The measures taken by our government to force Corollia to prevent Corollian criminal rings from illegally copying computer software developed in this country have failed. If they had succeeded, there would not have been a steep drop over the past year in the prices that our nation's computer companies can command in Corollia for legally imported copies of their software.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Over the past year, computer companies in the editorial writer's country shipped considerably fewer copies of software to Corollia than they had shipped in recent years.

(B) The price of computer software legally produced in Corollia did not experience a drop over the past year.

(C) The sales of computer software legally produced in Corollia rose over the past year.

(D) A decline in demand for computer software throughout Corollia during the previous year was not the only reason for the decline in the prices of computer software in that country.

(E) There is no market for the computer software illegally copied by Corollian criminal rings outside Corollia itself.

metallicafan · Accepted Answer

+1 D

Negation technique. If we assume that a decline in the demand is the only cause of the drop in the prices, we couldn't claim that the failure in the measures taken by our government is responsible.

piyushksharma · Answer

conclusion --> Government has failed in its measures to force to prevent corollian criminal rings from illegaly copying computer software.
 Argument -->If the measures have succeeded, there would not have been a steep drop over the past year in the prices the companies can command for legally imported copies of their software.

-Over the past year, computer companies in the editorial writer's country shipped considerably fewer copies of software to Corollia than they had shipped in recent years--> The number of copies of software shipped tot COROLLIA has had nothing to do with the conclusion.

-The price of computer software legally produced in Corollia did not experience a drop over the past year--> This could not be an assumption on which the abovve argument depends, the reason for this is that in the statement itself it has been mentioned that the price of computer software had a steep drop over the past year.

-The sales of computer software legally produced in Corollia rose over the past year--> Irrelevant, because sales has nothing to do with the context of the argument.

-A decline in demand for computer software throughout Corollia during the previous year was not the only reason for the decline in the prices of computer software in that country-->  A decline in demand for the computer software throughout Corollia during the previous year was not the only reason for the decline in the prices of computer software in that country.If the measures taken by the government would have been successfull then there would have not been a steep drop in the prices of the software.Thus there may be a possibility that due to some other factor, the price of software could have been influenced.
If there could have been another reason which has directly or indirectly influenced the prices, then the steps or measures taken by the government would be of no use.

-There is no market for the computer software illegally copied by Corollian criminal rings outside Corollia itself-->  Irrelevant, as we are not concerned what happens outside Corollia.

Hope this helps.

rrsnathan · Answer

Is this defender type or supporter type assumption?

-Rrsnathan

semwal · Answer

Editorial:The measures taken by our government to force Corollia to prevent Corollian criminal rings from illegally copying computer software developed in this country have failed. If they had succeeded, there would not have been a steep drop over the past year in the prices that our nation's computer companies can command in Corollia for legally imported copies of their software.

PREMISE- legally imported copies of software OF our nation's computer companies can command high prices but there has been a steep drop over the past year in the prices in Corollia...indicating the govt measures have not suceeded.
CONCLUSION- govt measures have failed.

ASSUMPTION- nothing else caused the prices to fall.....

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

-Over the past year, computer companies in the editorial writer's country shipped considerably fewer copies of software to Corollia than they had shipped in recent years... IRRELEVANT 
-The price of computer software legally produced in Corollia did not experience a drop over the past year..... WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IMPORTED ONES NOT LOCALLY PRODUCED 
-The sales of computer software legally produced in Corollia rose over the past year. SALES IS NOT IMP. SALE COST IS 
-A decline in demand for computer software throughout Corollia during the previous year was not the only reason for the decline in the prices of computer software in that country.... CORRECT... ALTERNATE REASON RULED OUT 
-There is no market for the computer software illegally copied by Corollian criminal rings outside Corollia itself.... THEN WHY DID THE PRICES REDUCE-------------

mejia401 · Answer

This is a defender assumption because nothing requires linking and because D removes an alternative reason for the decline in price. "A decline in demand for computer software throughout Corollia during the previous year was  not the only reason  for the decline in the prices of computer software in that country." If it's  not the only reason , then criminal activity must be associated with the decline in price too.

I hope this helps.

rrsnathan · Answer

Thanks for ur help.

Another doubt , How we find whether it is defender or supporter on reading the Stimulus.

Regards,
Rrsnathan.

KarishmaB · Answer

You don't really need to bother about the defender/supporter model for GMAT. You can sort out all assumption questions using assumption negation technique.

But still, if you want to, you can figure out what kind of assumption you are looking for from the stimulus. In case of a defender assumption, the author gives you a 'no other explanation is possible' feel in the argument. 
The assumption says "A is not possible". Since the author assumes that no other explanation is possible, it must be true that A is not possible, B is not possible and so on. So the argument assumes that A is not possible. That is a defender assumption.

A supporter assumption is a gap in the logic of the argument. If you feel that the author jumped to the conclusion without properly providing data, you are probably looking for a supporter assumption.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:
There was a steep drop in the prices of legally imported software last year.

Conclusion: Measures to control illegal copying have failed.

An assumption is a missing necessary premise.

(B) The price of computer software legally produced in Corollia did not experience a drop over the past year.

We don't need this to be true.
Negate B: The price of legally produced software in Corollia experienced a drop too

It is still possible that measures to control illegal copying have failed. Perhaps illegally copied software is available for 0 or negligible cost. So even with the reduced cost of all legal software (developed in house or imported), it is still possible that illegal copying is going on.

(D) A decline in demand for computer software throughout Corollia during the previous year was not the only reason for the decline in the prices of computer software in that country.

Negate D: A decline in demand was the only reason for the decline in prices.

This clearly states that a decline is demand is the only reason. So there can be no other reason for reduced priced. So illegal copying cannot be the reason for reduced pricing. So conclusion cannot hold.

Answer (D)

raghavrf · Answer

I chose option E; reason being if there is no market outside Corollia, then the illegally copied software by criminal ring would have been sold in corollia only, thereby reducing the demand of the legally made software and hence reducing the prices. What is the fault in this reasoning?

AjiteshArun · Answer

The problem is not as much with your reasoning as with what you are trying to do in this question. Remember that this is an  assumption  question. We need to choose the option that the argument  needs  in order to get to its conclusion.

If we go for E, we're effectively saying that for prices to fall in Corollia as a result of the activities of the local criminal rings, it is necessary that those criminal rings operate  exclusively  in Corollia. In other words, if they operate in even one market apart from Corollia, their activities cannot be the reason for a fall in prices in Corollia.

Because there is no reason to think that operating outside Corollia makes it  impossible  for Corollian criminal rings to hurt manufacturers, we remove option E.

GDT · Answer

VeritasKarishma 
I have a doubt in D which made me reject it 
Its negation says fall in demand for software was the only reason for price drop. now our concl was efforts to control illegal copying have not worked. decreased demand for software can be because people are now using illegal version and demand that not the legal one

So in this case since illegal copy is still occurring--> the measures have not worked 
the concl is still valid

LIBERTYRodP · Answer

as far as the defender / supporter assumption type, I believe they are the same. Actually, anything that DEFENDS, implicitly SUPPORTS.

As mentioned before, the negation technique will work in ALL assumption questions. The only other theory I would recommend to apply would be the GAP TYPE ASSUMPTION, because it is easier than the negation technique. Of course, the downside is that, while the negation technique works with ALL the assumption questions, the GAP only works with a few, especially with some easy ones who have a GAP TYPE.

Cheers,

Rod

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

The negation of option (D) states, as you have correctly identified, that fall in demand for software was  the only reason  for price drop. This would translate to a fall in demand for all software, legal and illegal. It does not translate to decreased demand for  legal software  only (since such a specific occurrence would need to be supported by the stimulus or answer option). Therefore the contention that decreased demand for software is due to increased demand for illegal software cannot be supported.

If the decreased demand for software was  the only reason  for the drop in prices of software, then it was not because of illegal copying of software. Therefore conclusion that fall in prices indicates a failure of measures to prevent illegal copying of software is now invalid.

Hope this helps.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Editorial: The measures taken by our government to force Corollia to p

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editorial: The measures taken by our government to force Corollia to p

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards