A famous football player recently won a lawsuit against an event-plann

Question

New project from GMAT Club! Click  here  
A famous football player recently won a lawsuit against an event-planning firm for its using an actor at a fundraising event to appear as the football player to sign autographs and take pictures with attendees. As a result of the lawsuit, event-planning firms will stop using actors to impersonate famous athletes. Therefore, the costs of fundraising events will rise, since the appearance of an actual famous athlete costs significantly more than that of an impersonating actor.

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

A. Most fundraising event attendees are unable to distinguish an impersonating actor from the real athlete.

B. Fundraising events that use real athletes typically are more successful than those that use imitating actors.

C. Some famous athletes who would be popular at fundraising events are not available to attend because of their old age and poor health condition.

D. Fundraising events will continue to use actors to impersonate famous athletes, but will now do so with the disclosure that such actors are not actually the athletes whom they impersonate.

E. Fundraising events will continue to attract attendees with the opportunity to receive an autograph by and a picture with a famous athlete.

VeritasPrepBrandon · Accepted Answer

With assumption questions, it is best to use a technique that Veritas teaches called the negation technique. When you negate the correct answer, the argument should be crumble. Think of it like playing jenga - when you pull out a certain piece, the entire structure crumbles.

Well in this case that certain piece is statement E: Fundraising events will continue to attract attendees with the opportunity to receive an autograph by and a picture with a famous athlete.

If you negate this and state "Fundraising events will NOT continue to attract attendees with the opportunity to receive an autograph...," then it is clear that these fundraisers will not be paying athletes to come, destroying the argument.

avohden · Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: E   - The correct answer to this question is (E). This is a STRENGTHEN question, requiring the test taker to choose the correct answer that provides new and relevant information to support the conclusion that the cost of fundraising events will rise because of the increased cost of using real athletes rather than acting impersonators.

Choice A is incorrect as whether or not the attendees know the difference between the actor and the real athlete is out of scope with regard to the conclusion that the cost of fundraising events will rise.

Choice B is incorrect as the relationship between the success of events with actors and the success of the events with athletes is also out of scope.

Choice C is incorrect as it too is out of scope with regard to the conclusion.

Choice D is incorrect as it directly contradicts the passage, which states "...event planning firms will stop using actors to impersonate famous athletes."

Choice E is the correct answer,  which provides new and relevant information that supports the conclusion. If event organizers were to stop using the lure of famous athletes to draw attendance, the costs would not necessarily rise in light of the need to pay top dollar for actual athletes, as the practice may just discontinue altogether. Only if these events plan to continue to use athletes as a draw would the costs necessarily increase.

Sidhrt · Answer

Hi,

Will due respect to all, lets discuss with a different view.

E. says " Fundraising events will continue to attract attendees with the opportunity to receive an autograph by and a picture with a famous athlete." 
Anyhow if we Negate it then it becomes " Fundraising events will NOT continue to attract attendees with the opportunity to receive an autograph by and a picture with a famous athlete." which implies => lesser people will come => hence lesser funds will be collected

E says "fund raiser will continue to attract attendee..", yes in fact they will, because they know that the cost will be higher this time. this statement is next to the conclusion indicating what fund raisers will do when the cost will go higher.

Option A says that Most fundraising event attendees are unable to distinguish an impersonating actor from the real football player.

if attendee can't differentiate between the two, then the actual player at the event can’t attract more attendee than what an imitated actor can.

See it like " what fund raisers have assumed when they quoted that cost will rise but not the total revenue?"

Understand it like this :
i = # of people imitated actor can attract
p= # of people player can attract
c= $ charged from attendee
x= payment to imitated actor ($)
y = payment of player ( where y >> x) ($)

Now total profit
P*c – y -> in player’s case 
i*c –x -> in impersonated actor’s case
I = p (as people can’t differentiate between the actor and player, so all who might have come for player will come for imitated actor and visa versa)

And y>x hence profit in players case will always be lesser than that in imitated actor’s case.

Even if you negate option A and say that the people can differentiate between Ronaldo and his imitated actor then surely Ronaldo can attract more attendee and hence the cost issue of fund raiser will collapse.

By making this assumption the fund raisers have made their point.

Pl put suggestions

Thanks

WillEconomistGMAT · Answer

Sidpopy, the entire discussion of profit is actually an unnecessary distraction.

The conclusion of the argument is that  costs will rise . Nothing turns on profits or lack thereof.

Sidhrt · Answer

Yup true the cost will rise; the profitability point was just an extended view point of it so as to cross-examine assumption from all angles. thanks

AD2GMAT · Answer

Zeroed down B & E. Finally marked B, thinking that the modifier "with the opportunity to receive an autograph by and a picture with a famous athlete." is extra information that is not "required for sure" to make the conclusion true.
Got trapped with "cost v/s profit", and marked B.
Any view about the modifier?

Sidhrt · Answer

Hi buddy,

Well. The conclusion says that the cost of the agencies will rise. Now ask yourself what if the agencies use neither actors nor players but some other more economic mode.

☺ in option E, the statement “with the opportunity to receive…” makes the crucial part of the assumption “Fundraising events will continue to attract attendees..” more valid because the attendees can be attracted by other economic modes in which case the cost will not rise. Without this part option E will not work as a necessary assumption.

thanks

rhine29388 · Answer

use of negation on all options one by one,we see that only option E breaks the link between premise and conclusion and thus renders the conclusion meaningless.so correct answer option E

XavierAlexander · Answer

Conclusion  -->  Increased cost due to highly paid athletes.

Objective  --> need a must-have strengthener.

A. Most fundraising event attendees are unable to distinguish an impersonating actor from the real athlete. 
  Not relevant --> Able or unable to distinguish, but conclusion needs real athletes

B. Fundraising events that use real athletes typically are more successful than those that use imitating actors.
  Not relevant --> More revenue (may be), but we need info around cost

C. Some famous athletes who would be popular at fundraising events are not available to attend because of their old age and poor health condition.
  Not relevant --> Conclusion needs real athletes

D. Fundraising events will continue to use actors to impersonate famous athletes, but will now do so with the disclosure that such actors are not actually the athletes whom they impersonate.
  Not relevant --> Tempting, but conclusion needs real athletes

E.  Fundraising events will continue to attract attendees with the opportunity to receive an autograph by and a picture with a famous athlete.
  Must-have strengthener --> Yes the cost will rise, as people will keep coming for real athletes. 
Negating this option, conclusion fails --> If people don’t come for real athletes, why to increase cost by paying real-athletes.

globaldesi · Answer

zeroed to A and E but later used negation technique. 
Negating A does not have any effect on the conclusion, but negating E weakens the conclusion. Hence E is the answer

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 famous football player recently won a lawsuit against an event-plann

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 famous football player recently won a lawsuit against an event-plann

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