Retired poker pro Justin Karet claims to be “over the game” and has

Question

Retired poker pro Justin Karet claims to be “over the game” and has spent much time disparaging the professional poker circuit to the media over the past year. Karet’s claims have no credibility, however, for despite his boasts that he would not bother to travel more than 30 minutes to attend a tournament, even if he expected to win, Karet was recently sighted at the Fulterton Poker Tilt, a sanctioned tournament event held 90 minutes from his hometown of Guerra.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

(A) Karet has “retired” twice before, only to return to professional poker each time.

(B) Karet was heard to claim that he would win the tournament handily, and did, taking home an estimated $115,000 in an afternoon’s play.

(C) Karet no longer lives within an hour’s drive of Guerra.

(D) Karet was offered a significant appearance fee to attend the tournament.

(E) Karet has also claimed that blackjack is superior to poker.

Solution: C

To Weaken an argument, begin by locating the conclusion, negating it, and searching for support for the negation.

Here the negation would say that Karet’s claims might have credibility, so find some answer choice that would support his case.

The original argument says that Karet has no credibility because he “traveled” 90 minutes from his hometown despite his pledge to never travel more than 30 minutes.

While we know Karet’s hometown is in Guerra, we do not know that his hometown is his current residence or base of operations.

(C) exposes this weakness.

chanakya84 · Accepted Answer

My take is Option C (after carefully analysing Option D).

My Explanation:
Argument: Justin Karet is not believed to be credible person. He claims that he will not travel to a poker tournament more than 30 minutes, even if he is expected to win that tournament
Fact: Justin Karet recently sighted at the Fulterton Poker Tilt, a sanctioned tournament event held 90 minutes from his hometown of Guerra
Approach: We need to find an option that makes Justin Karet claims credible. Lets evaluate the options:

Option D: Karet was offered a significant appearance fee to attend the tournament.
hmm..That means Karet has the incentive to attend the tournament. Now two scenarios may occur:
Scenario 1: Karet accepted the appearance fee, but Karet lives nearby the event location (say 20 min. drive). In this case Karet claims are credible (in reference to the argument)
Scenario 2: Karet accepted the appearance fee, but Karet lives far from the event location (say 5 hrs. drive). In this case Karet claims are not credible (in reference to the argument)

Hence Option D may or may not be the right answer.

Now consider Option C: Karet no longer lives within an hour’s drive of Guerra.
Interesting. Also the event location is 90 min. drive from Guerra. That means Karet has travelled <= 30 min. to reach to the event location. This leaves no room for any other scenario. Hence, Option C.

Thanks,
Chanakya

Hit kudos if you like the explanation

prinfy · Answer

what if Karet lives on the other side of Guerra ... 'Karet' ---------- 'Guerra' ---------- 'Tournament'.

WillEconomistGMAT · Answer

Hint: What would weaken Karet's credibility? If traveling to this tournament doesn't weaken Karet's credibility, why not?

mba1382 · Answer

IMO C  . Pretty straight one to be honest:

Conclusion : Karet's claims do not have credibility based on Karet's boast that  he would not travel even 30 minutes to the Poker tournament  while he was seen at a sanctioned torunament 90 minutes from Guerra i.e. his hometown.

Assumption: His credibility would be doubted if he did travel more than 30 mins to attend the tournament. To weaken this, we need to find an option that says he did not travel for at least 30 minutes.

Option C says  "Karet no longer lives within an hour’s drive of Guerra." -  He lives within (90-60)= 30 minutes from sanctioned tournament place  and he would not have traveled at least 30 mins to the tournament.

BloombergKasia · Answer

Remember that we are looking for an answer choice that would weaken the conclusion  the most . Only answer C speaks about a situation, in which it  might  take Karet maximum 30 minutes to travel to the tournament.

aadikamagic · Answer

This option still doesnt make sense to me. How it weakens the argument. D is much better than this because it cites a possible reason for Karet to travel to the tournament.

mvictor · Answer

helloooo
who the hell wrote this question?

Karet was recently sighted at the Fulterton Poker Tilt, a sanctioned tournament event held 90 minutes from his hometown of Guerra.

K lives in G.
FPT is 90~ min away from G.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

C) Karet no longer lives within an hour’s drive of Guerra.
so what? the TOURNAMENT is not in Guerra!!! guerra is his hometown!!! Moreover, he might live even farther

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

The conclusion out here is "Karet's claims have no credibility." His claim is that he would not bother to travel for more than 30 mins even if he is expected to win the game. Now the tournament which he is attending is 90 mins from his hometown. Hence the author suggests Karet's claims are invalid. So any answer choice which says Karet need not travel 90 mins is the answer. "C" clearly says that Karet no longer lives that far. Hence he would take less than 90 mins and the distance might be covered in 30 mins. Hence Karet's earlier claims are valid.

kskarthi · Answer

Can some say how it's ok to be discounting the possibility that Karet could be living at a place > 60 mins away from Guerra and literally the diametrically opposite side of the venue of the tournament, making his travel distance > 150 minutes (60 mins from his residence to Guerra and 90 mins from Guerra to the venue)?

Also Option C says he's offered a 'significant fee' to attend the tournament which would provide him a stronger incentive than the wins, which he's already confident will win.

Also Option C says he's offered a 'significant fee' to attend the tournament which would provide him a stronger incentive than the wins, which he's already confident will win.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Assumption questions are  must be true  type - not strengthening or weakening questions. It is possible that if Karet does not leave within 60 minutes of Gueraa, he lives within 30 minutes of Fulterton. The possibility occurs when the living place is between Guerra and Fulterton. Although one cannot "conclude" that he actually lives between Guerra and Fulterto, but it is possible that he does and in that case option C is a weakening statement - for strengthening and weakening statement one need not "confirm" the conclusion - one just needs a supporting or opposing point.

Option D is irrelevant: Karet never claimed that he would not violate the 30 minute travel rule if a high fee is offered; he claimed that he would not travel at all if the journey takes more than 30 minutes - there is no point of fees in his claim. So how much money is offered is irrelevant.

kskarthi · Answer

So what you're saying is its ok to make unwarranted assumptions about the information given in the option if it fits the response, especially for strengthen and weaken questions?

I've seen multiple questions of this type for which one of options were rejected because we're required to make assumptions about the options without any extra information. I've also posted responses on the forum for those types of questions.

Sent from my SM-G920T using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

sayantanc2k · Answer

Yes, that is what I indicated.

If you could post the links to the other questions you referred to, we could discuss them as well.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Solution: C

To Weaken an argument, begin by locating the conclusion, negating it, and searching for support for the negation. Here the negation would say that Karet’s claims might have credibility, so find some answer choice that would support his case. The original argument says that Karet has no credibility because he “traveled” 90 minutes from his hometown despite his pledge to never travel more than 30 minutes. While we know Karet’s hometown is in Guerra, we do not know that his hometown is his current residence or base of operations. (C) exposes this weakness.

IanStewart · Answer

This is a deeply problematic question. The argument essentially says "the poker player was at a tournament 90 minutes from his hometown, therefore he traveled more than 30 minutes to get there". That's a ridiculous argument if you take "hometown" to mean "where someone was born", because why would anyone think this professional poker player still lives in the town where he was born? It's not as ridiculous an argument if you take "hometown" to mean "the town where he makes his home". Then we'd probably want to find some other reason the player might have been in the vicinity of the tournament - maybe he was in the area for a book fair or wine tour or something.

So even the very argument we're trying to weaken hinges on the definition of "hometown". And there is no agreed single definition of that word. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "Definition of hometown. : the city or town where one was born or grew up. Also : the place of one's principal residence." If it means "the place of principal residence", then if C is true, he must have moved after the argument in the stem was made (and thus after the tournament took place), and in that case C is irrelevant to the argument overall. If instead it means "the place he was born or raised", then of course C is a good answer, but in that case, it's barely an argument at all.

I'd add that the several replies above that suggest C proves Karet now lives within 30 minutes of the tournament are not correct. Just because he moved more than 60 minutes from Guerra doesn't mean he moved 60 minutes closer to the tournament site. He might have moved to Brazil or Mauritius -- he could be almost anywhere.

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB  Is this a problematic question to practise?

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

It's not an official question. Why worry.

Tejassharmaa · Answer

Thanks, Ian, for bringing this out. I eliminated C with the straightforward reasoning that not living within 60 minutes of one's hometown doesn't necessarily mean living 30 minutes closer to the tournament location. He could be living on the opposite side, which would take 60+90 minutes. I chose D, which says he has given a significant amount to attend, but it also doesn't clear whether he was just attending as a marketing thing or he was actually participating. I found this question deeply troubling.

Retired poker pro Justin Karet claims to be “over the game” and has

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

Retired poker pro Justin Karet claims to be “over the game” and has

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