All the winners of the Great Indian Derby in the past 60 years have

Question

All the winners of the Great Indian Derby in the past 60 years have been horses that have been in the racing circuit for at least two years. While nobody knows for sure what the correlation between the two is, it remains beyond doubt that the winner of the Great Indian Derby will always be a horse that has been competing in races for at least two years.

Which of the following can be inferred from the above statements?

(A) If a horse has been competing in races for two years or more, it will definitely win the Great Indian Derby. 
(B) The Great Indian Derby is more competitive than other horse races in the country. 
(C) The experience that comes as part of being active in the racing circuit for at least two years plays a valuable role in making a horse victorious in the Great Indian Derby. 
(D) It is possible, on the off chance, for a horse to win the Great Indian Derby even if it has not been active in the racing circuit for at least two years. 
(E) If a horse has not been part of the racing circuit for at least two years, it will not win the Great Indian Derby.

saukrit · Accepted Answer

Indeed a very important question to understand the  Conditional reasoning . 
Before we understand this question it is important to understand how conditional reasoning and its contrapositive works

Example: 
If I study then I will Pass the exam
  If A then B
  
For this conditional reasoning only its contrapositive is true
i.e. If   Not B   then   Not A   ==> If I will not pass the Exam then i did not study   (TRUE)  
 
 But below conditions will not be true 
 
if Not A then Not B ==> If i did not study then i will not pass the exam   (Not True)  
If A then Not B ==> If i study then I will not pass the exam    (Not True)  
If not A then B ==> If I did not study I will pass the exam    (Not True)

Now coming to our sentence.
The conclusion says:  Winner of the Great Indian Derby  will always be  a horse that has been competing in races for at least two years .
This is of the FormIf  -----------------A-------------------------  then  --------------------B---------------------

As discussed above, The only statement that will be true is:  If Not B then A
  i.e.   If a horse does not compete in race for at least 2 years  then  It will not be the winner of Great Indian Derby

Only option that matches this is E, Hence it is the only correct answer.

But let us also find out why the rest of the options are wrong:  
(A) If a horse has been competing in races for two years or more, it will definitely win the Great Indian Derby.   If B then A   (not necessarily true)
(B) The Great Indian Derby is more competitive than other horse races in the country.   Irrelevant and out of scope  
(C) The experience that comes as part of being active in the racing circuit for at least two years plays a valuable role in making a horse victorious in the Great Indian Derby. Same as option A of the form   If B then A  
(D) It is possible, on the off chance, for a horse to win the Great Indian Derby even if it has not been active in the racing circuit for at least two years.   If A then not B   (not necessarily true)
(E) If a horse has not been part of the racing circuit for at least two years, it will not win the Great Indian Derby.   If Not B then Not A  (contrapositive form as discussed above). Definitely true

nik021 · Answer

why the answer is E and not C??
Please justify the answer!!

dcummins · Answer

Can you fully support that "The experience that comes as part of being active in the racing circuit for at least two years plays a valuable role in making a horse victorious in the Great Indian Derby".

Perhaps something else makes the horses victorious e.g. steroids, a good coach, or extreme endurance.

No matter how direct this answer choice may be it is the only thing that can be 100% supported in stemming from the facts provided.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: E

The stimulus clearly states that a horse has no chance of winning the Derby if it has not been active in the racing circuit for at least two years. Thus, E can be best inferred from this. Do not let A confuse you. To be active in the racing circuit for two years is a necessary criterion to win the Great Indian Derby but not a sufficient one. It could be possible for a horse to lose even after satisfying this criterion; however, if a horse does not satisfy this criterion, then it will definitely lose.

(B) The stimulus does not provide us information about any other horse race.

(C) The stimulus never tells us whether it is the experience or something else. For all you know, it could be the strength and endurance that comes as part of being active in the racing circuit for two years that is the reason for the success of these horses.

(D) The stimulus says no such thing. In fact, it quite clearly says that such a possibility is very unlikely

Axwe7 · Answer

I have a conflict between D) and the OE. I want to enquire why option D) is incorrect. It says that there's a remote chance for a horse to win; not impossible - which can also be inferred from the question stem. Option E) forms a conclusion (almost causal) from years of correlated data - which is also erroneous.

BhardwajS · Answer

Axwe7 let's understand the passage-

Past 60 years - all winners had at least 2 years racing experience
Passage explicitly saying-"it remains beyond doubt that the winner will always be a horse with at least 2 years experience"

Why option D is wrong-
You are saying "remote chance is possible" but the passage clearly saying it's "beyond doubt" and "always" . So there is no option for remote chance. Option D directly contradicts what’s the passage telling us. If the passage says "always," we cannot infer "maybe sometimes not."
Why option E is correct-
This is 100% true as per passage. If the winner will always have at least 2 years experience, then logically, a horse without 2 years experience cannot win. This is pure logical inference, not assumption.
You mentioned E is "forming conclusion from correlated data" - but that's exactly what the passage itself does in the second sentence! The passage already made that leap by saying "it remains beyond doubt" and we have to accept that as given.
Hope this helps!

Axwe7

I have a conflict between D) and the OE. I want to enquire why option D) is incorrect. It says that there's a remote chance for a horse to win; not impossible - which can also be inferred from the question stem. Option E) forms a conclusion (almost causal) from years of correlated data - which is also erroneous.

guddo · Answer

All the winners of the Great Indian Derby in the past 60 years have been horses that have been in the racing circuit for at least two years. While nobody knows for sure what the correlation between the two is, it remains beyond doubt that the winner of the Great Indian Derby will always be a horse that has been competing in races for at least two years.
 
 Which of the following can be inferred from the above statements?

The passage says that every winner has had at least two years of racing experience and then states even more strongly that the winner will always have that experience.  So having at least two years in the racing circuit is treated as a necessary condition for winning . It does not say that such experience is sufficient to win, or that the experience causes the win.

(A) If a horse has been competing in races for two years or more, it will definitely win the Great Indian Derby.

Wrong. This reverses the logic. The passage says winners have at least two years of experience, not that every horse with such experience will win.

(B) The Great Indian Derby is more competitive than other horse races in the country.

Wrong. The passage gives no comparison with other races.

(C) The experience that comes as part of being active in the racing circuit for at least two years plays a valuable role in making a horse victorious in the Great Indian Derby.

Wrong. The passage explicitly says nobody knows the correlation for sure. So we cannot infer that experience itself causes or helps victory.

(D) It is possible, on the off chance, for a horse to win the Great Indian Derby even if it has not been active in the racing circuit for at least two years.

Wrong. This contradicts the passage’s claim that the winner will always have at least two years of racing experience.

(E) If a horse has not been part of the racing circuit for at least two years, it will not win the Great Indian Derby.

Correct. This follows from the claim that the winner will always be a horse with at least two years in the racing circuit. If a horse lacks that condition, it cannot be the winner  according to the passage .

Answer: (E)

guddo · Answer

D is incorrect because it contradicts the stem.

The stem says it is  beyond doubt  that the winner will always have at least two years in the racing circuit. So there is no “remote chance” left for a horse without that experience to win.

E is not causal. It does not say two years of racing experience causes victory. It only restates the necessary condition: if a horse lacks that experience, it cannot win  according to the passage .

All the winners of the Great Indian Derby in the past 60 years have

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

All the winners of the Great Indian Derby in the past 60 years have

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