nitesh50 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
nitesh50 wrote:
HI
VeritasKarishmahttps://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-y ... 15979.htmlTHis 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
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.