Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
07 Feb 2022, 08:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Many parents think of figures such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as harmless suggestions that allow children to be imaginative and grow more excited about holidays and life events. However, lying to children violates the moral obligation parents have to teach their children the importance of telling the truth.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Parents cause more harm by lying to their children than by telling them there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy.
B. Parents are bound to tell the truth.
C. Children should be allowed to be imaginative without being lied to by their parents.
D. Children are not able to tell for themselves that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy are not real-life figures.
E. Parents must teach their children certain values.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Parents cause more harm by lying to their children than by telling them there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy.
B. Parents are bound to tell the truth.
C. Children should be allowed to be imaginative without being lied to by their parents.
D. Children are not able to tell for themselves that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy are not real-life figures.
E. Parents must teach their children certain values.
07 Feb 2022, 08:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Many parents think of figures such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as harmless suggestions that allow children to be imaginative and grow more excited about holidays and life events. However, lying to children violates the moral obligation parents have to teach their children the importance of telling the truth.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Parents cause more harm by lying to their children than by telling them there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy.
B. Parents are bound to tell the truth.
C. Children should be allowed to be imaginative without being lied to by their parents.
D. Children are not able to tell for themselves that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy are not real-life figures.
E. Parents must teach their children certain values.
It is assumption time, so make sure you go into the passage and answer choices with the right method, the one that works for you. I know that for many people, the negation technique is a failsafe approach; for others, such as myself, looking for a logical link to fill the gap from A to C suffices. (I cannot speak for others, but I do not like altering the original answer choices, particularly when the negation can get tricky.) What does the passage tell us?
Ha ha, we finally get a Christmas-themed question, and the jolly fat man from the North Pole makes an appearance, alongside other equally mythical characters. The first sentence is a statement of fact in the argument. We are told what many parents think, namely that the fictitious figures mentioned are harmless suggestions for entertaining children, more or less.
The second sentence is the argument, which takes a much more serious angle: parents have a moral obligation... to teach their children the importance of telling the truth.
The passage is easy to break down. What do the answer choices have in store for us?
Although such a consideration would constitute an assumption, it is not one we can draw from the passage. The degrees of harmfulness of one course of action against another are not discussed at all. No comparison is to be found. Thus, we need not assume that this line must fit between sentences one and two.
What a wonderful answer choice... but ultimately, it is nothing more than a clever trap. Although the keywords align with those in the argument, this answer choice cuts out a major component of what the argument says and splices together the remaining pieces. Just because parents are bound to teach their children about the truth does not necessarily mean that those parents have to tell the truth. There is a subtle difference between preaching and practicing what you preach, as the saying goes, that allows us to put this one on hold and seek a cleaner alternative, one that does not remove a vital component of the argument. I would yellow light this answer in my first pass of the options, but it would not survive a second.
The focus of the argument is on parents, not on children. This answer choice reaches back from the argument and brings in information from the first line of the passage, but such a consideration does not come up in the argument itself. In terms of real-world logic, this is the sort of association that sounds perfectly reasonable, but it is just for this reason that you have to watch out for it on this test. These passages, questions, and the correct answers tied to them must adhere to a linear logic, and close enough is not good enough.
I would call this the easiest answer to eliminate. Again, the focus of the argument is on parents, those who do the lying to their children. Whether the children themselves do or do not know the true nature of, say, Santa Claus, is irrelevant to the argument, making this answer choice a non-assumption. As an aside, I have seen students before in the CR forum struggle with doubly negated answer choices. A common question might be, Which "not" should I remove? If negation is your tool of choice, then use your best judgment to see which one affects the statement in a way that ties most reasonably and directly into the argument. (In this case, I would remove the first not, but the line still would not make a difference.)
Many times, strong language such as must works against the viability of an answer choice, but in this case, must aligns well with obligation from the passage. Then, the key component that was missing in (B), the notion of teaching children, of passing on knowledge directly from parents to children, makes an appearance here. Finally, certain values nicely offsets the earlier absolute (in must), such that the answer choice on the whole seems somewhat reserved. This sort of vague, cautious language is often a hallmark of a correct answer, and here, we have no trouble qualifying what certain values may be: moral values on the importance of telling the truth. If this answer choice were untrue, the argument would fall apart, so it is a required assumption. (B) was close, but this one is unassailable.
I hope that helps. If you chose (B), just remember to consult the passage as often as necessary so that you are assessing the answer choices with an eye on the exact language used in the argument. This one comes down to two viable options, in my mind, but one of them suffers from a sin of omission, if I do say so myself.
Answer: E
Many parents think of figures such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as harmless suggestions that allow children to be imaginative and grow more excited about holidays and life events. However, lying to children violates the moral obligation parents have to teach their children the importance of telling the truth.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Parents cause more harm by lying to their children than by telling them there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy.
B. Parents are bound to tell the truth.
C. Children should be allowed to be imaginative without being lied to by their parents.
D. Children are not able to tell for themselves that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy are not real-life figures.
E. Parents must teach their children certain values.
Quote:
It is assumption time, so make sure you go into the passage and answer choices with the right method, the one that works for you. I know that for many people, the negation technique is a failsafe approach; for others, such as myself, looking for a logical link to fill the gap from A to C suffices. (I cannot speak for others, but I do not like altering the original answer choices, particularly when the negation can get tricky.) What does the passage tell us?
Quote:
Ha ha, we finally get a Christmas-themed question, and the jolly fat man from the North Pole makes an appearance, alongside other equally mythical characters. The first sentence is a statement of fact in the argument. We are told what many parents think, namely that the fictitious figures mentioned are harmless suggestions for entertaining children, more or less.
The second sentence is the argument, which takes a much more serious angle: parents have a moral obligation... to teach their children the importance of telling the truth.
The passage is easy to break down. What do the answer choices have in store for us?
Quote:
Although such a consideration would constitute an assumption, it is not one we can draw from the passage. The degrees of harmfulness of one course of action against another are not discussed at all. No comparison is to be found. Thus, we need not assume that this line must fit between sentences one and two.
Quote:
What a wonderful answer choice... but ultimately, it is nothing more than a clever trap. Although the keywords align with those in the argument, this answer choice cuts out a major component of what the argument says and splices together the remaining pieces. Just because parents are bound to teach their children about the truth does not necessarily mean that those parents have to tell the truth. There is a subtle difference between preaching and practicing what you preach, as the saying goes, that allows us to put this one on hold and seek a cleaner alternative, one that does not remove a vital component of the argument. I would yellow light this answer in my first pass of the options, but it would not survive a second.
Quote:
The focus of the argument is on parents, not on children. This answer choice reaches back from the argument and brings in information from the first line of the passage, but such a consideration does not come up in the argument itself. In terms of real-world logic, this is the sort of association that sounds perfectly reasonable, but it is just for this reason that you have to watch out for it on this test. These passages, questions, and the correct answers tied to them must adhere to a linear logic, and close enough is not good enough.
Quote:
I would call this the easiest answer to eliminate. Again, the focus of the argument is on parents, those who do the lying to their children. Whether the children themselves do or do not know the true nature of, say, Santa Claus, is irrelevant to the argument, making this answer choice a non-assumption. As an aside, I have seen students before in the CR forum struggle with doubly negated answer choices. A common question might be, Which "not" should I remove? If negation is your tool of choice, then use your best judgment to see which one affects the statement in a way that ties most reasonably and directly into the argument. (In this case, I would remove the first not, but the line still would not make a difference.)
Quote:
Many times, strong language such as must works against the viability of an answer choice, but in this case, must aligns well with obligation from the passage. Then, the key component that was missing in (B), the notion of teaching children, of passing on knowledge directly from parents to children, makes an appearance here. Finally, certain values nicely offsets the earlier absolute (in must), such that the answer choice on the whole seems somewhat reserved. This sort of vague, cautious language is often a hallmark of a correct answer, and here, we have no trouble qualifying what certain values may be: moral values on the importance of telling the truth. If this answer choice were untrue, the argument would fall apart, so it is a required assumption. (B) was close, but this one is unassailable.
I hope that helps. If you chose (B), just remember to consult the passage as often as necessary so that you are assessing the answer choices with an eye on the exact language used in the argument. This one comes down to two viable options, in my mind, but one of them suffers from a sin of omission, if I do say so myself.
Answer: E
02 Dec 2025, 10:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
bb didn't get the explanation for option B as if i apply negation technique on this then statement becomes "Parents are not bound to tell the truth". If this statement is true then lying to children doesn't violate the moral obligation parents have to teach their children the importance of telling the truth. I am really confused why option B is wrong. I understand why option E is right but don't know why option B is wrong.
