rish2708
Hello
VeritasKarishma Ma'am,
Thanks a lot for answering my previous query.
I was confused between few questions on strengthening where an option of comparison was given:
For example,
Consider the following set of questions (
MGMAT and OG ) :
1)
https://gmatclub.com/forum/officials-of ... 12027.html2)
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-heavy-tr ... 42147.htmlNow if we consider the #1 question, we see that option E and option D both seem to strengthen and I was somewhat able tending to E, which eventually came out as right answer
Consider #2, we see that the correct answer Option C, ( since the other options do not come close and easy to draw conclusion)
Generally, it takes a bit time for me to rule out an option which compares the scenario/plan to another city/situation and this is a delta which usually takes time to choose the one of the prospective answers.
Is there a way or methodical logic that we can apply to rule out options which are based on comparison as in both the above cases, we saw that the answer differences were subtle.
I hope I am clear in my query, thanks in advance!!
Regards,
Rishav
Hey Rishav,
The distinction between the two questions is very clear - In the first one, the causation is not established.
A causation in a similar setting does strengthen the argument.
Say, city A is planning to establish plan X to achieve Y.
Other cities, which are similar to city A, did establish X to achieve Y and did achieve Y with it.
This does strengthen the possibility that establishing X will achieve Y in city A too.
This is what happens in the second question.
In the first question, the causation is not established. Did implementing suspension cause a decrease in the number of flagrant fouls in the similar league? We don't know. Perhaps the similar league has less aggressive players and hence lower incidence of flagrant fouls than the Youth Hockey League.
Since the causation is not established in option (D), it doesn't strengthen our argument.
Oh!! I did not get this in my first attempt!! Many thanks.
So the bold part means that the incidence of fouls are low but the suspension might not be the cause of it.