We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through

Question

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, without knowledge of the machines'inner workings, because most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts. So, in general, attaining technological expertise would prepare students for tomorrow's job market no better than would a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

A) Fewer people receive a traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills now than did 20 years ago.

B) Facility in operating machines designed for use by nonexperts is almost never enhanced by expert knowledge of the machines' inner workings.

C) Most jobs in tomorrow's job market will not demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use only by experts.

D) Students cannot attain technological expertise and also receive an education that does not neglect verbal and quantitative skills.

E) When learning to use a machine, technological expertise is never more important than verbal and quantitative skills.

junkostem · Accepted Answer

Choice C.

The conclusion states that technological knowledge is just as useful as trad. edu. when it comes to preparing for tomorrow's job market.
Since most machines are made for use by non-experts, those machines in most workplaces will NOT require expert operational knowledge.

Choice C fills in the gap nicely, between the premise and conclusion: "Most jobs in tmrw's job market will NOT demand the ability to operate machines designed for experts."
If this were  negated :  Most jobs in trmw's job market WILL demand the ability to operate machines designed for exerpts  ... then, technological mastery of such machinery is  absolutely essential  for tomorrow's job market.

souvik101990 · Answer

Please specify source of the question!!

Thanks

mba1382 · Answer

Source is LSAT. :-)

and I love solving questions like these

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

We learn to use most of the machines without expert knowledge of the machines'inner workings.

So, in general, attaining technological expertise would prepare students for tomorrow's job market no better than would a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills.

Assumption: Learning technical knowledge is not very useful for their future as probably there is not much demand for it.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

A) Fewer people receive a traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills now than did 20 years ago.
 how many people received the traditional education and how much did they vary in number do not matter. Traditional education is mentioned only to explain the point by an analogy.

B) Facility in operating machines designed for use by non-experts is almost never enhanced by expert knowledge of the machines' inner workings.
 we do not get any more facilities by learning machine expertise. Even though this may be true as per the argument. We dont need to assume this.

C) Most jobs in tomorrow's job market will not demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use only by experts.
(This is inline with our assumption mentioned above)

D) Students cannot attain technological expertise and also receive an education that does not neglect verbal and quantitative skills.
 (There is no point of assuming that student cannot do something as the argument only meant that the tech education wont be much useful.)

E) When learning to use a machine, technological expertise is never more important than verbal and quantitative skills.
 the importance of kills is mentioned/related nowhere and need not assumed.

nightblade354 · Answer

Bumping for further discussion

ndavis13 · Answer

The questions asks you to strengthen the argument. The argument is either expertise or education does not make a difference in preparing for tomorrow's job market. So first I am going to look for an answer the speaks directly to preparing for the job market. In this case, "C" speaks about the demands of tomorrow's job market. So this answer specifically strengthen's the argument.

A - No indication of time is given in the paragraph so this answer does not apply.
B - This answer talks only about the ability to operate the machine, not about preparation for the job market. 
C - Correct answer
D - The paragraph does not imply that a student cannot receive both, but that neither is better than the other
E - "Never" in this answer is the use of an extreme word. In most cases, answers with extremes will not be the correct answer. This answer does indicate what the paragraph says - that expertise is not more important that verbal or quantitative skills, but again that is not the argument.

Identifying the argument correctly is the key to choosing the correct answer.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The right answer here should be Option C. When you're asked to find the assumption, it will usually be some statement that bridges a potential problem with the argument. In this case, we're told that computers are designed for non-experts. Hence, teaching computer expertise is not better than teaching regular quantitative and verbal skills for the future.

Now if you question the argument, immediately what comes to mind is that things could change very much down the line with the kinds of computers we use. Hence, the assumption would most likely be about the way we use computers NOT changing.

C clearly indicates this and is therefore correct.

- Matoo

GKomoku · Answer

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, without knowledge of the machines'inner workings, because most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts. So, in general, attaining technological expertise would prepare students for tomorrow's job market no better than would a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills. Let's decipher the meaning of the argument: We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, without knowledge of the machines'inner workings, premise - presents general information that usually we just read the instruction to use the most of the machines we do not need special 'technical background to do so. because most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts. premise - gives additional support for above statement, yeah it is true that the most machines made in such a simple way that could be handled by mere people. So, in general, attaining technological expertise would prepare students for tomorrow's job market no better than would a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills. conclusion - made on the basis of above statements, the argument is not that much strong so we feel that there is some little gap between premises and conclusion. in simple words conclusion states that technological knowledge and traditional education have equal contribution to prepare students for future job markets. here we should assume that by future job market the author wants to say that students will work with machines - for non-experts - generally. so traditional education is enough to prepare student for future job. The argument depends on assuming which one of the following? This is an Assumption question, Assumption is a link between premise and conclusion, it somehow strengthen the argument, because it makes the argument more strong. By close analysis of the conclusion and argument itself we have a general picture of what kind of assumption we need, so let's do it A) Fewer people receive a traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills now than did 20 years ago. We need a link between premise and conclusion, not an extra information about tradition education, "out of scope"-love tis definition

B) Facility in operating machines designed for use by nonexperts is almost never enhanced by expert knowledge of the machines' inner workings. This answer is more or less closer to be true, but 'never' is too expreme in out case, we cannot say based on our argument that machines NEVER require expert knowledge, because there can be the cases when simple operation manual won't help, you need an expert, or the machine require annual expert check just to be safe. NEVER sometime can be the correct answer in case that it is stated clearly in the argument. But here is too expreme. C) Most jobs in tomorrow's job market will not demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use only by experts. it seems exactly what we need here, it is in the scope of our argument, perfectly links premise-conclusion, and makes perfect sense. traditional education is enough to prepare student for future job that won't require expert level of knowledge of that machine. D) Students cannot attain technological expertise and also receive an education that does not neglect verbal and quantitative skills. completely out of scope discussed, we don't need to assume anything about ability of the students to attain technological or whatever expertise. E) When learning to use a machine, technological expertise is never more important than verbal and quantitative skills. again too extreme 'NEVER', moreover we don't need to know learning process or so, this is not a link that we need. C is the answer.

Raman109 · Answer

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, without knowledge of the machines'inner workings, because most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts. So, in general, attaining technological expertise would prepare students for tomorrow's job market no better than would a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following? - We need to find a minimum condition or a missing premise

A) Fewer people receive a traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative skills now than did 20 years ago. - Irrelevant

B) Facility in operating machines designed for use by nonexperts is almost never enhanced by expert knowledge of the machines' inner workings. - "facility" means "ability." It means "ability is never enhanced" - out of scope.

C) Most jobs in tomorrow's job market will not demand the ability to operate many machines that are designed for use only by experts. - if we negate it, it'll shatter the conclusion. Ok.

D) Students cannot attain technological expertise and also receive an education that does not neglect verbal and quantitative skills. - irrelevant

E) When learning to use a machine, technological expertise is never more important than verbal and quantitative skills. - this comparison is out of scope.

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through

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

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through

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