A few people who are bad writers simply cannot improve their

Question

A few people who are bad writers simply cannot improve their writing, whether or not they receive instruction. still, most bad writers can at least be taught to improve their writing enough so that they are no longer bad writers. However, no one can become a great writer simply by being taught how to be a better writer, since great writers must have not just skill, but also talent.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

A). All bad writers can become better writers.

B). All great writers had to be taught to become better writers.

C). Some bad writer can never become great writers.

D). Some bad writers can become great writers.

E). Some great writers can be taught to be even better writers.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

You don't need any venn diagrams for this question. Just pick the required info:

1. Some bad writer CANNOT get better.
2. Most bad writers can be taught enough to be not bad anymore.
3. No one can become great by simply being taught how to be better since you need talent to be great.

Option (C) is straight forward - some bad writers can never become great (in fact some cannot even get better, forget about great).

Look at the other options:

A). All bad writers can become better writers - Incorrect according to the argument
B). All great writers had to be taught to become better writers - Incorrect according to the argument
D). Some bad writers can become great writers - Perhaps not! May be, if they have hidden talent but we certainly cannot infer this statement from the argument. The argument only tells us what cannot make one a great writer. It doesn't tell us what will make someone great.
E). Some great writers can be taught to be even better writers. - The argument doesn't talk about making great even better.

divyakesharwani · Answer

I picked C. Here is my reason:

Bad Writer - > taught/skill !-> great writer
bad writer -> taught/skill -> some still bad (first line)
 
taught + talent -> great writer (last line)

from the diag. above: only C is correct that some bad writers can't become great writers.

PS: !-> stands for does not implies.

SOURH7WK · Answer

If in option C some is replaced by ALL, will it be still correct?

Skag55 · Answer

Hi Karishma, 
 "It doesn't tell us what will make someone great." 
I disagree, it does tell us what it takes to be a great writer, that is talent:
 "...since great writers must have not just skill, but also talent". 
Any thoughts?

KarishmaB · Answer

This is the necessary/sufficient condition distinction. 
 "...since great writers must have not just skill, but also talent".  tells you that you NEED skill and talent to be great. The point is will everyone who posses both be great? We don't know. We don't know what is sufficient to make a great writer. What we know is what is necessary "not just skill but also talent"

Paris75 · Answer

HI,

Isn't it "  all   bad writers can never be great writers"?

Thanks for discussion!

semwal · Answer

A few people who are bad writers simply cannot improve their writing, whether or not they receive instruction. still, most bad writers can at least be taught to improve their writing enough so that they are no longer bad writers. However, no one can become a great writer simply by being taught how to be a better writer, since great writers must have not just skill, but also talent.
Which one of the following can be properly infered from the passage above?
A). All bad writers can become better writers.... NOR REALLY .. SEE OPENING STATEMENT... 
B). All great writers had to be taught to become better writers. STRETCHING IT TOO MUCH.. 
C). Some bad writer can never become great writers.... CORRECT ... SEE OPENING NARRATIVE.... .
D). Some bad writers can become great writers..... STRETCHING IT TOO MUCH.... 
E). Some great writers can be taught to be even better writers... STRETCHING IT TOO MUCH.....

KarishmaB · Answer

No. You need to be very particular about EXACTLY what is given. All we have is this:

1. Some bad writers CANNOT get better.
2. Most bad writers can be taught enough to be not bad anymore.
3. No one can become great by simply being taught how to be better since you need talent to be great.

We know that one cannot become great by being taught if he doesn't have talent. But do we know that all bad writers have no talent? It's not given to us. One could be a bad writer because one was not instructed well. But actually one may have "hidden talent". Anyway, these are just assumptions but the point is that we are not given that all bad writers do not have talent. We are given though that 'some bad writers cannot get better' so we know that they will never become great writers. So we can say that 'some bad writers will never be great.'

vivekgautam1 · Answer

The opening line of the passage gives a good amount of information to make the decision.

2nd line says --> most bad writers can be taught so that they are no longer bad.
next line says --> still being better writer doesn't make one great writer until one has talent.

Now if you again go through 1st line, you will get a clear picture.
'Some bad writers will be bad even after giving instructions. So they can't become great writers (when they couldn't become better/NOT bad writers).

So correct answer choice is C.

rhine29388 · Answer

as well known from the definition of inference it is a near fetched conclusion(often called hidden conclusion),only option C meets the brief.
Answer - C

BillyZ · Answer

General Description : This question asks you to find the response that can be inferred from the given passage. A statement that may well be true, but that is irrelevant to the passage, cannot be the best answer. Even a response that presents information consistent with the passage need not be the best answer. Rather,  the passage must provide grounds or support for inferring the response in order for that response to be the best answ er.

A. Incorrect. This statement is contradicted by the first sentence in the passage, which states that there are some bad writers who cannot become better writers.

B. Incorrect. This statement is consistent with the passage. The passage allows the possibility that all great writers had to be taught to become better writers, though it says (in the last sentence) that teaching is not sufficient for becoming a great writer. But the passage also allows the possibility that some great writers did not have to be taught to become better writers. Since both the statement and its opposite are consistent with the passage, the statement in response (B) cannot be inferred from the passage.

C.  Correct . This follows from the first sentence: Since some people are  bad writers  who  cannot improve their writing , and since bad writers would have to improve their writing as a  precondition  for becoming great writers, it follows that there are some people who are bad writers and who can  never become great writers .

D. Incorrect. Given the passage, there may well be some bad writers who can become great writers, but it might be instead that no bad writers can become great writers. Since both the statement and its opposite are consistent with the passage, the statement in response (D) cannot be inferred from the passage.

E. Incorrect. The passage makes no claims about how a great writer could become an even better writer, so this response cannot be inferred from the passage.

Difficulty Level: Medium difficulty

Tips and Pitfalls : If a question asks what can be properly inferred from the passage, do not choose a response simply because it is consistent with the passage. The correct response will be one that follows logically from the statements in the passage; that is, the one that is consistent with the passage, but whose opposite is not consistent with the passage.

arpita30 · Answer

I am one of them. I want to resolve this problem.

achandak · Answer

Hi @KarishmaB@,

In the premise, it is given that ' FEW  people who are bad writers simply cannot improve their writing'. While, the OA given is option 'C' which states ' SOME .........'. I understand that FEW is any number less than 50% while SOME can be anything form 1 to 99.
Basically, FEW is smaller than SOME. As answer to inference Q has to be 100% of the time true, I did eliminate option C.

Could you please help explain on why C is right?

aragonn · Answer

I think you have started on a wrong foot over here. This is an inference question. The approach should be different. You have to read every choice and find that how it can be wrong. If not then its is our answer. I think this is only question type where you dont need to find all incorrect choices. If you are absolutly certain then in most of the cases that choice will be answer. Now about answer choice

Well in some cases, no matter how much you teach a bad writer, he/she will not improve. I think content clearly support it. I am not sure that extent of few/some will help you anyways. Moreover gmat dont ask any question on these grounds. Hope it helped.

AkshdeepS · Answer

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

Points to note are :

1. Great writer must have : Skill + Talent
2. No one can become great writer only by getting taught.
3. Bad writers can at least be taught to improve their writing so that they are no longer bad writers. This is the limit for them.
4. This means "Some bad writers can never become great writers because,

Some bad writers who are improving can only reach the level where they are not considered bad writers.
Therefore, some bad writers who are even not improving can never be a great writer.

A). All bad writers can become better writers.
B). All great writers had to be taught to become better writers.
  C). Some bad writer can never become great writers.  
D). Some bad writers can become great writers.
E). Some great writers can be taught to be even better writers.

kornn · Answer

Dear VeritasKarishma AnthonyRitz , If "skill" is one of the necessary conditions, then why is choice B. wrong? Choice B. suggests inculcating the "skill" aspect through teaching. Otherwise, how can "great writers" fulfill the "skill" requirement? If "great writers" can gain "skill" without teaching, shouldn't that ability be called "talent"? Hence, I think "all great writers" had to fulfill the "skill" - one of the necessary conditions - through teaching. Thank you in advance!

KarishmaB · Answer

You are assuming that "teaching" is necessary for "skill". One can develop skill by being taught but what if skill can be learned on our own by practice too? The argument does not say that "teaching is necessary for skill development".
Then it is not necessary that all great writers were taught at some time even if skill is necessary to be great.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A few people who are bad writers simply cannot improve their

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A few people who are bad writers simply cannot improve their

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards