Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 11:36 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 11:36
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
broall
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Last visit: 07 Apr 2021
Posts: 1,138
Own Kudos:
7,149
 [40]
Given Kudos: 65
Status:Long way to go!
Location: Viet Nam
Posts: 1,138
Kudos: 7,149
 [40]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
36
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
push12345
Joined: 02 Oct 2017
Last visit: 10 Feb 2019
Posts: 536
Own Kudos:
535
 [9]
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 536
Kudos: 535
 [9]
9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
sobby
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Last visit: 24 Jan 2022
Posts: 444
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 444
Kudos: 391
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
duttarupam2344
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Last visit: 18 Jul 2019
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 5
Kudos: 1
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings was considered one of the greatest intelligence agents of all time. It is clear that if his dismissal was justified, then Hastings was either incompetent or else disloyal. Soon after the dismissal, however, it was shown that he had never been incompetent. Thus, one is forced to conclude that Hastings must have been disloyal.

Which one of the following states an assumption upon which the argument depends?

In my opinion, "one is forced to conclude" is the conclusion and not "Hastings must have been disloyal".

(A) Hastings's dismissal was justified.
Best Answer. If it was not so, people could conclude in different ways.
(B) Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence officer.
Irrelevant statement.
(C) The dismissal of anyone who was disloyal would be justified.
Does not necessarily mean if someone's dismissal is justified, he / she would be disloyal.
(D) Anyone whose dismissal was justified was disloyal.
One can not conclude unless it is known whether the dismissal was justified.
(E) If someone was disloyal or incompetent, then his dismissal was justified
Same explanation as B, contradicts with the stimulus.
avatar
manjot123
Joined: 29 Jul 2018
Last visit: 13 May 2021
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 187
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
GMAT 1: 620 Q45 V31
GMAT 1: 620 Q45 V31
Posts: 91
Kudos: 24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
to reject e
if----then
in e its
reverse which may or may not be true.
avatar
nsdl1985
Joined: 11 Jan 2016
Last visit: 25 Apr 2022
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 71
Posts: 29
Kudos: 20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
broall
Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings was considered one of the greatest intelligence agents of all time. It is clear that if his dismissal was justified, then Hastings was either incompetent or else disloyal. Soon after the dismissal, however, it was shown that he had never been incompetent. Thus, one is forced to conclude that Hastings must have been disloyal.

Which one of the following states an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Hastings's dismissal was justified.
(B) Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence officer.
(C) The dismissal of anyone who was disloyal would be justified.
(D) Anyone whose dismissal was justified was disloyal.
(E) If someone was disloyal or incompetent, then his dismissal was justified.

Explanation:
(A) Hastings's dismissal was justified.
Best choice- Negate the same- Conclusion will fall apart.

(B) Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence officer.
He was considered greatest intelligence office. This is not equivalent to high ranking officer. Also his high ranking does not create any impact on conclusion.

(C) The dismissal of anyone who was disloyal would be justified.
We are not concerned with 'Anyone' We are concerned with Hastings/Intelligence Agents. Also what happens to anyone who is disloyal is not the subject matter. We need to see if Hasting's dismissal is justified and if yes then we can conclude he was disloyal.

(D) Anyone whose dismissal was justified was disloyal.
Again not concerned with anyone. We are talking about Hasting/Intelligence Agents.

(E) If someone was disloyal or incompetent, then his dismissal was justified.[/quote]
Same explanation as C & D
User avatar
ashutosh_73
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,637
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Needs to be verified by experts:

Question: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus breakdown:

Premise 1: ~ False info ---> ~ reveal identity
Premise 2: Ordered by judge/editor ---> reveal identity
Conclusion: information concerns safety violations at the power plant ---> reveal identity even if info. is accurate


There seems a GAP between Prem-2 and conclusion. Premise 1 needs to be ignored, because conditionality of conclusion mentions that identity will be revealed even if the info. is true.


(A) The information that the informant provided is known to be false.
Does't connect to the conclusion, which mentions reveal ''even if the info is true.
(B) The journalist's editor will not order her to reveal the informant's identity unless the information is accurate and concerns public safety.
~ information accurate and concerns public safety ---> ~ order her to reveal.
Contra positive: order her to reveal ---> information accurate and concerns public safety
this seems to against the argument
(C) If the information concerns safety at the power plant, a judge will order the journalist to reveal her informant's identity.
This connects the Premise 2 & conclusion well:
info. safety at the power plant ---> Judge order ---> reveal info
(D) The truth of the information provided by the informant can be verified only if the informant's identity is publicly revealed.
verification of truth has nothing to do with the argument
(E) The informant understood, at the time the journalist promised him confidentiality, that she would break this promise if ordered to do so by a judge.
Just a restatement of premise 2, gives us nothing about the conclusion.


Also, if an argument says:
~ info false ---> prosecuted
can i read it as: True ---> prosecuted?
Is it advisable to reverse the logical statements this way? I read somewhere that we shouldn't.

Thanks
ASHUTOSH
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,829
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,829
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts