Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 20:15 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 20:15
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [1]
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 06 Feb 2019, 06:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mudit27021988
Hello VeritasKarishma

I am deeply troubled with Assumption type questions. I am not able to sail through the simplest of the assumption questions however I do understand all the theories regarding assumption i.e. negation, pre-thinking, supporter/defender assumptions. Somehow I am still answering the questions because of gut feeling and not because of the correct rational.
Q1)
concerned Citizen: The American electoral system clearly possesses deep flaws and must be discarded in favor of a more fair and just system. In several recent elections, candidates who were leading in pre-election polls failed to win election to office.

The suggestion that the American electoral system must be discarded most strongly depends on which of the following assumptions?


A. The candidate leading in pre-election polls won a majority of the popular vote in the actual election yet still failed to be elected.

B. The voting population did not significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

C. The candidate winning the election consistently spent more money than the candidate who was leading in pre-election polls but failed to actually win.

D. The candidate who actually won office typically relied on a strongly negative campaign strategy and attacked his or her opponent's personal credibility in the final days before the election.

E. The elections in question were for major national or state offices and received considerable media coverage.

Here I rejected Option B simply because after negating the argument:
The voting population did significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

I felt that here just alteration of feeling doesnt imply that candidates actually voted differently. So, I marked A. Later I realized that "poppular vote" part is insignificant and doesnt prove a point.

Q2)

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.

Here I am not able to knock of D). Negating D:
"Not All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases" This means that atleast 1 person is not genetically susceptible to some diseases, or to say atleast 1 person is susceptible to non-genetic disease.

Do you see a pattern here? Can you pleaaaaaseeeeee help me out!!!!!

Apologies for such a long post!!
Thanks
Show more

Here is an explanation of your two questions:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/concerned-ci ... l#p2221624
https://gmatclub.com/forum/within-20-ye ... l#p2221634
User avatar
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 06 Feb 2019, 23:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
Mudit27021988
Hello VeritasKarishma

I am deeply troubled with Assumption type questions. I am not able to sail through the simplest of the assumption questions however I do understand all the theories regarding assumption i.e. negation, pre-thinking, supporter/defender assumptions. Somehow I am still answering the questions because of gut feeling and not because of the correct rational.
Q1)
concerned Citizen: The American electoral system clearly possesses deep flaws and must be discarded in favor of a more fair and just system. In several recent elections, candidates who were leading in pre-election polls failed to win election to office.

The suggestion that the American electoral system must be discarded most strongly depends on which of the following assumptions?


A. The candidate leading in pre-election polls won a majority of the popular vote in the actual election yet still failed to be elected.

B. The voting population did not significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

C. The candidate winning the election consistently spent more money than the candidate who was leading in pre-election polls but failed to actually win.

D. The candidate who actually won office typically relied on a strongly negative campaign strategy and attacked his or her opponent's personal credibility in the final days before the election.

E. The elections in question were for major national or state offices and received considerable media coverage.

Here I rejected Option B simply because after negating the argument:
The voting population did significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election polls and the actual election.

I felt that here just alteration of feeling doesnt imply that candidates actually voted differently. So, I marked A. Later I realized that "poppular vote" part is insignificant and doesnt prove a point.

Q2)

Within 20 years it will probably be possible to identify the genetic susceptibility an individual may have toward any particular disease. Eventually, effective strategies will be discovered to counteract each such susceptibility. Once these effective strategies are found, therefore, the people who follow them will never get sick.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions?


(A) For every disease there is only one strategy that can prevent its occurrence.

(B) In the future, genetics will be the only medical specialty of any importance.

(C) All human sicknesses are in part the result of individuals' genetic susceptibilities

(D) All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases.

(E) People will follow medical advice when they are convinced that it is effective.

Here I am not able to knock of D). Negating D:
"Not All humans are genetically susceptible to some diseases" This means that atleast 1 person is not genetically susceptible to some diseases, or to say atleast 1 person is susceptible to non-genetic disease.

Do you see a pattern here? Can you pleaaaaaseeeeee help me out!!!!!

Apologies for such a long post!!
Thanks

I think you are approaching it wrong. Assumption questions are solved keeping in mind what an assumption is.
It is a MISSING NECESSARY PREMISE.
Read about it here first:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... sumptions/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... -question/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... ons-again/

Don't jump to negation immediately. It is just one of the techniques that helps you when you are stuck. I will take the questions you talked about separately.
Show more

Thanks @veritaskariahma. I went through the links ans the responses to my problems in detail. I will tweak my approach and will see if I can sail through this.

Thanks again. :) :)

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
nitesh50
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Last visit: 09 Aug 2021
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
69
Given Kudos: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
Posts: 139
Kudos: 69
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 08 Feb 2019, 05:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi VeritasKarishma


https://gmatclub.com/forum/ragct-2015-d ... 02099.html

Conclusion: Bleach, as long as it is diluted properly, is an effective means of eliminating any health risks.
Premise: Diluted Bleach can eliminate bacteria.

IN this question, we are not told about the ability of Diluted Bleach to eliminate Pathogens.
So In option A, wouldn't the impact be varied?
If we say Yes it can eliminate the pathogen: this will strengthen the argument.
If we say NO it cannot eliminate the pathogen: this will weaken the argument.
Hence IMO it should have been explicitly stated that Bleach kills only Bacteria for the weakner to work.
Where am I going wrong in my analysis?



Doubt 2:

The following is one of your explanations of a question. I have a follow up doibt.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-intervie ... l#p2223007
Please do have a look


Regards
Nitesh
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 09 Feb 2019, 05:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nitesh50
Hi VeritasKarishma


https://gmatclub.com/forum/ragct-2015-d ... 02099.html

Conclusion: Bleach, as long as it is diluted properly, is an effective means of eliminating any health risks.
Premise: Diluted Bleach can eliminate bacteria.

IN this question, we are not told about the ability of Diluted Bleach to eliminate Pathogens.
So In option A, wouldn't the impact be varied?
If we say Yes it can eliminate the pathogen: this will strengthen the argument.
If we say NO it cannot eliminate the pathogen: this will weaken the argument.
Hence IMO it should have been explicitly stated that Bleach kills only Bacteria for the weakner to work.
Where am I going wrong in my analysis?



Doubt 2:

The following is one of your explanations of a question. I have a follow up doibt.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-intervie ... l#p2223007
Please do have a look


Regards
Nitesh
Show more

Nitesh, the premises talk about bacteria only. But the conclusion talks about eliminating ALL health risks. Can only bacteria cause health risks?

Option (A) highlights this problem - machines have many other kinds of pathogens too. So ALL health risks may not be taken care of.

Yes, you are right. Effectiveness of diluted/undiluted bleach can certainly be questioned too but no option talks about it. There are various ways of weakening the argument.

There are various questions that can be raised to weaken the conclusion.
I. At what level of dilution is the bleach effective and safe?
II. Is bacteria the only health risk in the washing machines?
III. Does the beach itself leave deposits in the machine and create health risks?

Our option (A) focusses on II.
User avatar
nitesh50
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Last visit: 09 Aug 2021
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
69
Given Kudos: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
Posts: 139
Kudos: 69
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 11 Feb 2019, 03:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 11 Feb 2019, 04:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey nitesh50,

Here you go: https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... l#p2224477


nitesh50
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [1]
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 11 Feb 2019, 22:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nitesh50
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh
Show more

What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.
User avatar
nitesh50
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Last visit: 09 Aug 2021
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
69
Given Kudos: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
Posts: 139
Kudos: 69
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 11 Feb 2019, 22:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
nitesh50
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh

What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.
Show more



Hi VeritasKarishma

Thank you for your reply!

I do get why option B is correct. The parallel example really helped me. IMO, what option B is decreasing out belief in the force of the evidence.

But I am still confused about option A.
The Consultant says: weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.
From my relatively short experience with Cr questions, sometimes we have to read the options in light of the argument.

Option A states that 95% of the companies that attended the seminar.......
Will it be wrong to say that those companies are actually software companies?
There is no hint in the argument that implies that they were some different sort of seminars. Hence, I feel that the companies that is being referred to option A are actually Software companies. If they are, then the argument is still weakened.

Why this line of reasoning incorrect?

Regards
Nitesh
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [3]
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 12 Feb 2019, 05:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nitesh50
VeritasKarishma
nitesh50
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh

What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.



Hi VeritasKarishma

Thank you for your reply!

I do get why option B is correct. The parallel example really helped me. IMO, what option B is decreasing out belief in the force of the evidence.

But I am still confused about option A.
The Consultant says: weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.
From my relatively short experience with Cr questions, sometimes we have to read the options in light of the argument.

Option A states that 95% of the companies that attended the seminar.......
Will it be wrong to say that those companies are actually software companies?
There is no hint in the argument that implies that they were some different sort of seminars. Hence, I feel that the companies that is being referred to option A are actually Software companies. If they are, then the argument is still weakened.

Why this line of reasoning incorrect?

Regards
Nitesh
Show more

Nitesh, the argument talks about software companies.

Consultant: Your total revenue would increase considerably if you enrolled your employees in my weeklong training seminar that is specifically designed for your business.
- He says, "Enrol your employees in my seminar that is designed for your business (the kind of seminar is the one designed for you)."
It doesn't imply that my seminar is for your kind of companies only.

Software Company Executive: Your seminars are poorly designed and a waste of money. Since 2005, the companies in my industry that have enrolled employees in your seminar have revenues that are considerably lower than those who have not enrolled employees in your seminar.
- "Your seminars" further clarifies that there are multiple types of seminars. The companies in my industry that have ... (so talking about companies in software industry only)

Option (A) talks of a different set.

(A) 95% of the companies that enrol in the consultant’s seminar report that their revenues have increased.
95% of the companies that enrol in the consultant's seminar report ...
What can we say about the software companies that enrolled in his seminar? Nothing. We don't know what percentage of these companies are made up by software companies.
User avatar
nitesh50
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Last visit: 09 Aug 2021
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
69
 [1]
Given Kudos: 139
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 610 Q48 V25
Posts: 139
Kudos: 69
 [1]
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 14 Feb 2019, 22:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
nitesh50
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh

What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.
Show more




Hi VeritasKarishma

I know it is not a good habit of comparing questions if their reasonings are different. But I came across a OG question, which uses some of the concept of the above Veritas question.


Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?


(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century


The argument is drawn by using the presence of METAL RINGS as a premise.
The correct option uses metal objects
Why can't we say that metal rings are not part of the metal objects that were traded?
Just as in the Veritas prep question, in which we don't know what % of the companies were software companies, the OG option A do looks similar.


Looking forward to your reply.

Thank you
avatar
swapnilce.nitdgp
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Last visit: 22 Jun 2024
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 17
GMAT 1: 590 Q47 V25
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V27
GMAT 3: 620 Q49 V26
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 3: 620 Q49 V26
Posts: 16
Kudos: 5
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 16 Feb 2019, 12:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can you please guide me on 'How to distinguish between a sufficient and a necessary condition in a question'?

Following is a question : Historians frequently argue that an outlet for population overflow is required for a country's economy to prosper. But we need look no further than our own shores to find counter-evidence: Cuba has long been able to rid itself of its surplus population by sending people here, and yet its economy has done quite poorly.

is there any key word, which is required to distinguish one from the other?
or is there any broad umbrella term, such as economy prosperity term vs population overflow?
pl guide, i can't distinguish sufficient and necessary thing.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 16 Feb 2019, 20:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nitesh50
VeritasKarishma
nitesh50
HI VeritasKarishma

https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.html

THis is a veritas Question.

I am really confused between option A and Option B.

According to my understanding, a weakner should cast a doubt on the argument. It may or may not break an argument.

The solution states that It is not necessary that option A is a weakner. The software companies may be part of the 5%.
I thought assumptions are necessary for the argument.

ON the other hand one can argue the same "necessary" condition for option B.
If companies with higher revenues did not join the seminar, there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue.

But again, IMO weakner questions are never about a possibility.
Can you please explain this question?

Regards
Nitesh

What does "there is a possibility that the companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue." have to do with option (B)? Option (B) does not imply that. If we know that the SOFTWARE companies that joined the seminar have had an increase in the revenue, it weakens the executive's argument.
Option (B) explains the data given in the right light - the reason most software companies enrolled in the seminar have lower revenues is that the high revenue companies did not join at all.

For example, say a school organises extra classes after school hours. If someone says that these extra classes are useless because most students who have joined these lie in the bottom 50% of the class, the claim may be unjustified if only the students lying in that bracket joined the class in the first place. If the top of the class did not join the extra classes (since they were not needed), then obviously, the ones who joined would be those at the bottom. So we cannot criticise the classes based on this.
This is exactly what happens in our argument too.




Hi VeritasKarishma

I know it is not a good habit of comparing questions if their reasonings are different. But I came across a OG question, which uses some of the concept of the above Veritas question.


Metal rings recently excavated from seventh-century settlements in the western part of Mexico were made using the same metallurgical techniques as those used by Ecuadorian artisans before and during that period. These techniques are sufficiently complex to make their independent development in both areas unlikely. Since the people of these two areas were in cultural contact, archaeologists hypothesize that the metallurgical techniques used to make the rings found in Mexico were learned by Mexican artisans from Ecuadorian counterparts.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the archaeologists' hypothesis?


(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century


The argument is drawn by using the presence of METAL RINGS as a premise.
The correct option uses metal objects
Why can't we say that metal rings are not part of the metal objects that were traded?
Just as in the Veritas prep question, in which we don't know what % of the companies were software companies, the OG option A do looks similar.


Looking forward to your reply.

Thank you
Show more


Nitesh, until and unless a question is on exactly the same format (e.g. a test prep company makes a question based on some official question) as another, they are not comparable.

The options you pointed out are not similar either.
In the OG question, option (A) talks about the complete set of metal objects of which metal rings would be a subset. All metal objects will include metal rings too.
If metal objects were not traded, neither were metal rings because objects includes all objects.
Also note that the question is "useful to evaluate" -Getting a "YES" / "NO" from option (A) increases opposite possibilities.

Mexico learned to make metal rings from Ecuador.

What is useful to evaluate?

(A) Whether metal objects were traded from Ecuador to western Mexico during the seventh century
YES - Metal objects were traded. Ok, that leaves the possibility open that metal rings were traded and not made by Mexico.
NO - Metal objects were not traded. That means the metal rings were made in Mexico. That increases the possibility that Mexico learned to make from Ecuador.

In the Veritas question, option (A) is not talking about the complete set of companies which enrolled for the seminar.
Option (A) talks about 95% of the companies which enrolled for the seminar. It does not talk about "all companies which enrolled for the seminar". Hence whatever it says may not be applicable to software companies which enrolled (unlike OG question in which option (A) talked about all metal objects which necessarily includes metal rings).

If option (A) were instead:
(A) Companies that enrol in the consultant’s seminar report that their revenues have increased.
Now, this would weaken the executive's response. If all companies report higher numbers, the seminar may not be bad.

Please note again, comparing two questions is a big waste of time. Every question is different and hence should be evaluated individually.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 16 Feb 2019, 20:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
swapnilce.nitdgp
Can you please guide me on 'How to distinguish between a sufficient and a necessary condition in a question'?

Following is a question : Historians frequently argue that an outlet for population overflow is required for a country's economy to prosper. But we need look no further than our own shores to find counter-evidence: Cuba has long been able to rid itself of its surplus population by sending people here, and yet its economy has done quite poorly.

is there any key word, which is required to distinguish one from the other?
or is there any broad umbrella term, such as economy prosperity term vs population overflow?
pl guide, i can't distinguish sufficient and necessary thing.
Show more

When the statements use "required", "necessary", "needs", "Only if A happens, can B happen" - these are often necessary statement markers.
Check this post for an example: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/1 ... onditions/

For sufficient conditions, you might see "enough", "leads to", "if A happens, B will happen" etc.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 09 Mar 2019, 09:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi karishma,
May I've your attention in the following link?
here is the link
Thanks__
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 11 Mar 2019, 00:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AsadAbu
Hi karishma,
May I've your attention in the following link?
here is the link
Thanks__
Show more

There you go, AsadAbu:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/pueblo-bonit ... l#p2240003
User avatar
gmat1393
User avatar
Share GMAT Experience Moderator
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 644
Own Kudos:
2,545
Given Kudos: 199
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 644
Kudos: 2,545
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 17 Mar 2019, 03:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi VeritasKarishma

Can you please help to understand why option B is better than option C for the question in the below URL?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/scientists-h ... ml#p911501
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 18 Mar 2019, 04:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmat1393
Hi VeritasKarishma

Can you please help to understand why option B is better than option C for the question in the below URL?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/scientists-h ... ml#p911501
Show more

Hey gmat1393,

Here you go: https://gmatclub.com/forum/scientists-h ... l#p2244366
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 19 Mar 2019, 23:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Check out: https://gmatclub.com/forum/radio-statio ... 71306.html
for one of the most vibrant assumption question discussions.
It keeps popping up every now and then - a ton to learn here!
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [2]
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 19 Mar 2019, 23:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NOTES ON WEAKEN QUESTIONS

- Identify the Conclusion of the argument

The conclusion is

    the author’s opinion, not an established fact;
    the reason the author writes the argument;
    the position taken by the author if it is a two-sided debate

    In case of a conditional conclusion (If A, then B), do not worry about whether A can happen or not. Worry only about what happens after A happens. You need to weaken that if A happens, then B will happen. (Look at the conditional conclusion example given below)

- Find the option that makes the conclusion less likely to happen (not necessarily break the conclusion, just make it less likely to happen)

- The correct option could expose a flaw in the reasoning of the argument.

- The correct option will bring in new information. Note that you may “feel” that the information is not new if it links two things already mentioned in the argument but the link will not be mentioned.

- Sometimes, you may come across “weaken EXCEPT” questions. They are looking for that option which DOES NOT weaken the argument. Your task is the same except that now you have to do it 4 times - you need to find 4 weakeners. The correct answer may strengthen the conclusion or have no effect on it.
Be wary of the options that are strengtheners in these questions. Often, they are the most popular wrong choices.

Some Examples:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/to-prevent-a ... lit=weaken

https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to ... lit=weaken

https://gmatclub.com/forum/demographic- ... lit=weaken

Weaken - Conditional Conclusion:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-past- ... 42416.html

Weaken question in which identifying the conclusion is difficult:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-current- ... l#p2147748
User avatar
gmat1393
User avatar
Share GMAT Experience Moderator
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 644
Own Kudos:
2,545
Given Kudos: 199
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 644
Kudos: 2,545
Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR 24 Mar 2019, 19:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma

Please help in solving this one
https://gmatclub.com/forum/we-waste-a-h ... 91591.html

Thanks
   1  ...  10   11   12   13   14  ...  34   
Moderators:
miag
188 posts
u1983
Current Student
710 posts
MikeScarn
Current Student
275 posts