All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent man

Question

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?

Abhishek009 · Accepted Answer

There are 2 conditions for winning medal in competition -

1. Spending many hours under training  
 2.Coaching under one of the world’s elite coaches

From the stimulus the  blue highllighted ( training under one of the worlds elite coaches ) is fulfilled  however the  red part ( Spending many hours under training ) is not mentioned  and the  author jumps to the conclusion , Michael will win a medal in competition.

So, the author is assuming the second criteria - " Spending many hours under training "

Hence IMHO (C)

Plz provide us with the OA as well as OE.

sun01 · Answer

Hiii

The only thing matters here is whether Michael will be able to convert several hours of practice under elite coach into a success in tournament.

The supporting premise is  ...who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach.

If he doesn't, the argument conclusion falls apart.

Hence E.

chetan2u · Answer

...

Hi,
the logic of the main statement itself is flawed..
 The Q would have been better had it asked for "flaw in the logical reasoning". ...

The logic in this Q is ..
all the As will have done B..
so since C is doing B, he will be A..
 all the As will have done B..  does not mean all doing B will be As..

But taking the Q as it is, answer will be C..
For becoming a medallist .. it is necessary that many hours  (requirement 1)  of trg under elite coach  (requirement 2) ..
we know he has coached under elite coach..
so if he has to win a medal, he has to have trained for many hours..

veritas
It would be better if you change  therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.  to  micheal wins a medal in competition , to make the Questin logical

chesstitans · Answer

this questions shows that outside knowledge cannot be applied to gmat. 
test takers should only stick to/with what is written in the passage.

Meechampolee · Answer

Negation is fun!!! This is actually the first time I am applying negation.

gvvsnraju@1 · Answer

E need not be true.

Neg C breaks the conclusion as it contradicts the given argument.

Squib17 · Answer

There are three parts which are important in this sentence -

Premise: All of the athletes who will win a medal in the competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach.

Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches;

Conclusion: therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in the competition. (  this is based on the assumption that he will spend "many hours training under the coach" )

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year. Out of Scope: No mention of injuries ]

(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did. Out of Scope: Nothing has been mentioned about the comparison of hours spent by others in training.  ]

(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.  This is in line with our pre-thinking and has to be the CORRECT answer. ]

(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.  Out of scope : No mention of productiveness in the passage ]

(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training. Out of Scope: No mention of performance comparison in training and competition ]

Correct answer: C

bluetrain · Answer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make this question better we should modify a sentence little

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach --> necessary condition
All of the athletes who have spent many hours training under an elite coach will win a medal in competition --> sufficient condition

laddaboy · Answer

Since the question explicitly specifies to win a medal one needs to have elite coach + many hours training under him .. hence since Michael already has an elite coach he needs many hours of training to win the medal. Hence C

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Designated Target · Answer

I think it is the conditional reasoning
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach
= The athletes who win a medal in competition, they must have spent many hours training under an elite coach. 
Sufficient condition: win a medal in competition
Necessary condition: study 
=> Every answer choice that does not state this necessary condition will necessarily serve as assumption for the conclusion. For example, 
A. Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training => But if he did not spend enough time training for the competition, he won't win
While it could be true, it does not have to be true. 
Hope it helps!

Designated Target · Answer

I think it is the conditional reasoning
All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach
= The athletes who win a medal in competition, they must have spent many hours training under an elite coach.
Sufficient condition: win a medal in competition
Necessary condition: many hours training
=> Any answer choices that does not state this necessary condition will necessarily serve as assumption for the conclusion. For example,
A. Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training => But if he did not spend enough time training for the competition, he won't win
While it could be true, it does not have to be true.
Kudos if it helps

David nguyen · Answer

(E) Does not necessarily have to be true. It is possible that he does not perform well in the competition but he still win the medal because of the elite level of his ability.

GMAT0010 · Answer

Hi,
I'm confused !!!
Between B and C, I chose B because of this logic:
Suppose Mike is coached under an elite trainer and does spend many hours. The information in the passage tells us that Mike needs to spend many hours training . But is that sufficient enough to guarantee that he would win? What about his competitors? What if they practice longer than him? What if Mike spends half the time they've spent training? The logic only talks about the hours required in order to win the competition so.. what's wrong?
Please correct my logic if you find any flaws

GMATNinja, nightblade354

GMATNinja , nightblade354

chetan2u · Answer

Of course the logic in the reasoning is a bit flawed or the question could have been better framed.

But B will not be the answer.

There are 2 requirements - a) many hours of training and b) trg under elite coach. 
Now the hours one spends is not inter related to the hours the other spends. It may be both spend many hours but others have spent lesser number of hours training when compared to Mike. But still both meet the requirement (a)

GMAT0010 · Answer

Ok , so we can't infer details like this directly, but we can give a sure shot answer just from E. Understood

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.

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent man

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

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent man

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