Most gourmet chefs enter the restaurant industry, intending to create

Question

Most gourmet chefs enter the restaurant industry, intending to create innovative new recipes and regard those with similar motivations as their colleagues. Thus, when a chef becomes famous for providing simple culinary advice to a general audience, most other chefs come to the conclusion that this celebrity should not be considered a true colleague any longer.

The explanation offered above for the low regard in which celebrity chefs are held by gourmet chefs assumes that

A) gourmet food preparation is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues
B) gourmet chefs usually do not see those chefs whose fame they envy, as colleagues
C) it is possible that a chef becomes a famous celebrity without having created an innovative new recipe
D) those who are not chefs cannot accurately evaluate or understand innovative recipes
E) gourmet chefs believe that chefs famous for providing simple culinary advice are not interested in creating innovative new recipes

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Lokesh3 · Answer

Option C - Incorrect, what a chef did in the past is irrelevant, whether he is still trying to innovate is important 
Option E - Correct, it states that those famous are not interested in innovating new recipes

amansoni5 · Answer

Missing Assumption

For the reasoning to work, gourmet chefs must believe that celebrity chefs giving simple advice do NOT share the motivation of creating innovative recipes.

If they still believed those celebrity chefs aimed to innovate, they would still qualify as colleagues.

Correct Answer - E) gourmet chefs believe that chefs famous for providing simple culinary advice are not interested in creating innovative new recipes

Vi09 · Answer

This is an assumption based question wherein the premise States that "Most gourmet chefs enter the restaurant industry, intending to create innovative new recipes and regard those with similar motivations as their ." But the conclusion states that the" Thus, when a chef becomes famous for providing simple culinary advice to a general audience, most other chefs come to the conclusion that this celebrity should not be considered a true colleague any longer." Hence we would need a statement that would help reaching the conclusion

A) out of scope as it talks about completely different things

B) out of scope

C) Out if scope as becoming a famous celebrity is not the option

D) out of scope - we are not talking about the recipes

E) Correct Answer - This clearly bridges the gap between premise and a conclusion , it gives an assumption that the chef who's famous for providing simple culinary advice to a general audience should not be considered a true colleague as the gourmet chefs entering the restaurant are intented to innovate but once they start making simple recipes there is an underlying assumption that they are no longer interested to innovate

vasu1104 · Answer

most gourmet chefs enter with motivation of creating new recipes and also buy on the similar motivation of their colleagues. 
 when chef gives simple culinary advice to general audience after becoming famous, 
 conclusion= other chefs believes that this chef should not be true colleague any longer.

so passage jumps from giving general advice after becoming famous to not allowing place in other chefs company.

A) gourmet food preparation is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues. 
 thats good as cooperation is needed to succeed but passage doesnt rely on such assumption at all.

B) gourmet chefs usually do not see those chefs whose fame they envy, as colleagues 
 this is very personal feeling and this is not passage is concerned about. toss it out.

C) it is possible that a chef becomes a famous celebrity without having created an innovative new recipe 
 i dont care how they become celebrity and neither does the author of passage. out.

D) those who are not chefs cannot accurately evaluate or understand innovative recipes. 
 yeah, thats why they are not chefs. but is that why we are rejecting famous chefs from group of other chefs. hell no. out.

E) gourmet chefs believe that chefs famous for providing simple culinary advice are not interested in creating innovative new recipes 
 perfect. this clears the gaps. if famous chef still interested on creating innovative recipes then the other chefs marks will have no value and break down. they are assuming that this guy is now famous so he must not have any reason to create innovative recipes. so this is winner.

laborumplaceat · Answer

E is correct.
We have to find an assumption along the lines of - the chef who becomes famous for simple culinary advice has no intent of creating new recipes.
A: We are not concerned with what inf of activity - solitary or not is gourmet food prep.
B: ENvy is not being talked about
C: Even if they have not yet created an innovative recipe, they might intend to. And the whole argument is based on "intentions" of creating new recipes
D: Out of Scope
E: COrrect - in line with the pre-thinking.

Vi09 · Answer

This is an assumption based question wherein the premise States that "Most gourmet chefs enter the restaurant industry, intending to create innovative new recipes and regard those with similar motivations as their ." But the conclusion states that the" Thus, when a chef becomes famous for providing simple culinary advice to a general audience, most other chefs come to the conclusion that this celebrity should not be considered a true colleague any longer." Hence we would need a statement that would help reaching the conclusion

A) out of scope as it talks about completely different things 
B) out of scope
C) Out if scope as becoming a famous celebrity is not the option
D) out of scope - we are not talking about the recipes
E) Correct Answer - This clearly bridges the gap between premise and a conclusion , it gives an assumption that the chef who's famous for providing simple culinary advice to a general audience should not be considered a true colleague as the gourmet chefs entering the restaurant are intented to innovate but once they start making simple recipes there is an underlying assumption that they are no longer interested to innovate

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_TBS_mGvJI

wilsonprj · Answer

Premise

Most gourmet chefs enter the profession to create innovative recipes.

They consider people with similar motivations to be their colleagues.

Observation

Some chefs become famous for giving simple culinary advice to the public.

Conclusion

Other chefs conclude that such celebrity chefs should not be considered true colleagues anymore.

Logical Gap

Why would chefs stop seeing them as colleagues?

Because the definition of colleague given earlier was:

People with the same motivation: creating innovative recipes

Therefore the reasoning must assume:

Celebrity chefs who give simple advice are not interested in creating innovative recipes.

If that belief were false, the argument collapses.

Evaluate the Choices 
A

Talks about teamwork. The argument never mentions collaboration.

❌ Irrelevant.

B

Says chefs don't see chefs they envy as colleagues.

The argument never mentions envy.

❌ Irrelevant.

C

Says a chef could become famous without creating innovative recipes.

This does not explain why other chefs would stop seeing them as colleagues.

❌ Not required.

D

Says non-chefs cannot understand innovative recipes.

The argument concerns chefs judging other chefs, not the public.

❌ Irrelevant.

E

Gourmet chefs believe chefs famous for simple advice are not interested in creating innovative recipes.

This connects the reasoning:

True colleagues → motivated by innovation

Celebrity advice chefs → not motivated by innovation

Therefore → not colleagues

✅ Correct

egmat · Answer

Let me break down this argument step by step so the logic becomes crystal clear.

The argument has three key pieces: 
 1.  Gourmet chefs enter the industry to create innovative new recipes.
 2.  They regard those with SIMILAR MOTIVATIONS as colleagues.
 3.  When a chef becomes famous for providing simple culinary advice to a general audience, gourmet chefs conclude that celebrity chef is no longer a true colleague.

Now, the question asks: what does this explanation ASSUME?

Think about the logical chain. Gourmet chefs only consider someone a colleague if that person shares their motivation (creating innovative recipes). They stop considering celebrity chefs as colleagues. Why? The argument says it is because these chefs become famous for providing simple culinary advice.

But wait —  there is a gap here . Just because someone provides simple culinary advice does not automatically mean they have abandoned the goal of creating innovative recipes. A chef could do BOTH. The argument jumps from "provides simple advice" to "no longer a colleague" without explicitly connecting the dots.

The hidden bridge  is Answer E: gourmet chefs BELIEVE that chefs famous for simple culinary advice are NOT interested in creating innovative new recipes.  Without this assumption, there is no reason to strip them of colleague status. If celebrity chefs could still be interested in innovation while also giving simple advice, the argument falls apart.

Why not the other answers? 
-  A  talks about cooperation, which is irrelevant to the argument.
-  B  introduces envy, which is never part of the reasoning.
-  C  is  tempting , but the argument does not depend on whether celebrity chefs actually created innovative recipes — it depends on what gourmet chefs BELIEVE about their motivations.
-  D  brings in non-chefs evaluating recipes, which is outside the scope.

Key takeaway:  In  assumption questions , look for the unstated link that connects the evidence to the conclusion. Here, the gap was between "gives simple advice" and "no longer shares our motivation."  E  bridges that gap perfectly.

Answer: E

Most gourmet chefs enter the restaurant industry, intending to create

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

Most gourmet chefs enter the restaurant industry, intending to create

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