Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
05 Dec 2018, 09:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
29% (02:31) correct
71%
(02:21)
wrong
based on 832
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
If there are sentient beings on planets outside our solar system, we will not be able to determine this anytime in the near future unless some of these beings are at least as intelligent as humans. We will not be able to send spacecraft to planets outside our solar system anytime in the near future, and any sentient being on another planet capable of communicating with us anytime in the near future would have to be at least as intelligent as we are.
The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) There are no sentient beings on planets in our solar system other than those on Earth.
(B) Any beings that are at least as intelligent as humans would want to communicate with sentient beings outside their own solar systems.
(C) If there is a sentient being on another planet that is as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to send spacecraft to the being’s planet anytime in the near future.
(D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.
(E) Any sentient beings on planets outside our solar system that are at least as intelligent as humans would be capable of communicating with us.
The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) There are no sentient beings on planets in our solar system other than those on Earth.
(B) Any beings that are at least as intelligent as humans would want to communicate with sentient beings outside their own solar systems.
(C) If there is a sentient being on another planet that is as intelligent as humans are, we will not be able to send spacecraft to the being’s planet anytime in the near future.
(D) If a sentient being on another planet cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft to its planet.
(E) Any sentient beings on planets outside our solar system that are at least as intelligent as humans would be capable of communicating with us.
14 Dec 2018, 10:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Manhattan prep explanation
What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is a Sufficient Assumption question. The correct answer choice, if added to the premises, will completely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Break down the Stimulus:
Let’s be honest. This is potentially a tough question. Some people might arrive at the correct answer using general, intuitive reasoning, but to fully explain why the correct answer is correct we need to look at the underlying conditional logic.
On the other hand, this isn’t a standard Sufficient Assumption question based on conditional logic, where we predict the correct answer by linking the conditional statements and spotting the missing link in the chain of logic. This “sentient beings” argument contains a few twists.
To have any success at all with this question we first have to identify the argument core—the basic structure of the argument. The first sentence is the conclusion. The second sentence contains two premises, separated by “and.” There aren’t any specific keywords like "because" or "thus" pointing to premises or the conclusion, so we have to determine this through context, by seeing which of the statements appears to support the other.
Once we understand the basic structure of the argument, we can examine the reasoning.
There is an approach to this question that we might call the “Krav Maga” approach (a term I’m borrowing from my esteemed colleague, Gerald McMillan). Two concepts, “beings on other planets” and “at least as intelligent as humans,” are mentioned in the conclusion as well as the premises. “Determining if there are sentient beings on other planets” is unique to the conclusion, while “sending spacecraft to other planets” and “communicating with us” are unique to the premises. To take the Krav Maga approach, I’ll focus on these three unique concepts. I’ll eliminate any answer choices that fail to connect them, look for one that does, and hope for a knockout.
For those wanting a more thorough explanation, here it is:
The conclusion is a conditional statement. Both “if” and “unless” can indicate conditional logic, but in this case, “unless” is the conditional operator. The conclusion is about whether or not we can determine something, and “if there are sentient beings on other planets outside our solar system” is the thing that we are trying to determine. If we recognize “unless” as the conditional indicator, we can express the conclusion as a simple “if-then” statement:
C: able to determine if there are beings —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
(The entire argument is about the near future, and beings on planets outside of our solar system, so we’ll leave those details out for the moment.)
Now let’s look at the premises:
P1: cannot send spacecraft to other planets
P2: beings able to communicate with us —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
For the second premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us
This missing link would normally be the correct answer to this type of question. But what about the first premise? How does that fit in? As mattsherman pointed out in his explanation, it’s difficult to predict an answer using a strictly formulaic conditional logic approach. This is where we need to step back and take a more general look at the reasoning.
For the first premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
cannot send spacecraft to other planets —> not able to determine if there are beings
The contrapositive of this is:
able to determine if there are beings —> can send spacecraft to other planets
For the conclusion to follow logically, we have to consider the assumptions implicit in both of the premises:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
Any prephrase?
If we’ve identified the exact assumption, we’re looking for:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
With the Krav Maga approach, we’re hoping for a knockout by eliminating any answers that fail to connect “able to determine if there are beings” with “communicating” and “spacecraft.”
Correct answer:
The correct answer is (D).
Answer choice analysis:
A) Neither our premises nor our conclusion is about planets other than Earth in our own solar system. This answer choice is irrelevant.
B) Our second premise, and the related assumption, deal strictly with others being capable of communicating with us. Whether they want to or not is irrelevant.
C) This answer choice tells us: beings at least as intelligent as humans —> cannot send spacecraft. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s also irrelevant.
D) This is a rewording of the exact assumption we need. If you’re practicing Krav Maga, this is the only answer choice that contains all three concepts we want.
E) This is a reversal of the second premise. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s irrelevant.
Takeaway/Pattern: There are several ways to choose the correct answer for this question. The best method for you will depend on your strengths and overall goals. The Krav Maga approach isn't always guaranteed to work, but if you're stuck it allows you to at least make an educated guess without spending an excessive amount of time on the question.
What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is a Sufficient Assumption question. The correct answer choice, if added to the premises, will completely guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Break down the Stimulus:
Let’s be honest. This is potentially a tough question. Some people might arrive at the correct answer using general, intuitive reasoning, but to fully explain why the correct answer is correct we need to look at the underlying conditional logic.
On the other hand, this isn’t a standard Sufficient Assumption question based on conditional logic, where we predict the correct answer by linking the conditional statements and spotting the missing link in the chain of logic. This “sentient beings” argument contains a few twists.
To have any success at all with this question we first have to identify the argument core—the basic structure of the argument. The first sentence is the conclusion. The second sentence contains two premises, separated by “and.” There aren’t any specific keywords like "because" or "thus" pointing to premises or the conclusion, so we have to determine this through context, by seeing which of the statements appears to support the other.
Once we understand the basic structure of the argument, we can examine the reasoning.
There is an approach to this question that we might call the “Krav Maga” approach (a term I’m borrowing from my esteemed colleague, Gerald McMillan). Two concepts, “beings on other planets” and “at least as intelligent as humans,” are mentioned in the conclusion as well as the premises. “Determining if there are sentient beings on other planets” is unique to the conclusion, while “sending spacecraft to other planets” and “communicating with us” are unique to the premises. To take the Krav Maga approach, I’ll focus on these three unique concepts. I’ll eliminate any answer choices that fail to connect them, look for one that does, and hope for a knockout.
For those wanting a more thorough explanation, here it is:
The conclusion is a conditional statement. Both “if” and “unless” can indicate conditional logic, but in this case, “unless” is the conditional operator. The conclusion is about whether or not we can determine something, and “if there are sentient beings on other planets outside our solar system” is the thing that we are trying to determine. If we recognize “unless” as the conditional indicator, we can express the conclusion as a simple “if-then” statement:
C: able to determine if there are beings —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
(The entire argument is about the near future, and beings on planets outside of our solar system, so we’ll leave those details out for the moment.)
Now let’s look at the premises:
P1: cannot send spacecraft to other planets
P2: beings able to communicate with us —> beings at least as intelligent as humans
For the second premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us
This missing link would normally be the correct answer to this type of question. But what about the first premise? How does that fit in? As mattsherman pointed out in his explanation, it’s difficult to predict an answer using a strictly formulaic conditional logic approach. This is where we need to step back and take a more general look at the reasoning.
For the first premise to support the conclusion, we have to assume:
cannot send spacecraft to other planets —> not able to determine if there are beings
The contrapositive of this is:
able to determine if there are beings —> can send spacecraft to other planets
For the conclusion to follow logically, we have to consider the assumptions implicit in both of the premises:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
Any prephrase?
If we’ve identified the exact assumption, we’re looking for:
able to determine if there are beings —> beings able to communicate with us OR can send spacecraft to other planets
With the Krav Maga approach, we’re hoping for a knockout by eliminating any answers that fail to connect “able to determine if there are beings” with “communicating” and “spacecraft.”
Correct answer:
The correct answer is (D).
Answer choice analysis:
A) Neither our premises nor our conclusion is about planets other than Earth in our own solar system. This answer choice is irrelevant.
B) Our second premise, and the related assumption, deal strictly with others being capable of communicating with us. Whether they want to or not is irrelevant.
C) This answer choice tells us: beings at least as intelligent as humans —> cannot send spacecraft. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s also irrelevant.
D) This is a rewording of the exact assumption we need. If you’re practicing Krav Maga, this is the only answer choice that contains all three concepts we want.
E) This is a reversal of the second premise. It doesn’t connect either premise with the ability to determine if there are sentient beings on other planets, so it’s irrelevant.
Takeaway/Pattern: There are several ways to choose the correct answer for this question. The best method for you will depend on your strengths and overall goals. The Krav Maga approach isn't always guaranteed to work, but if you're stuck it allows you to at least make an educated guess without spending an excessive amount of time on the question.
General Discussion
AdityaHongunti
Posts: 532
06 Dec 2018, 03:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
TYPE: Sufficient vs Necessary Assumption
Understand:
-we will not be able to send spacecraft
- to communicate, the being would have to be as intelligent.
COCNLUSION : We will NOT be able to determine existence of beings ,UNLESS they are as intelligent as humans
think :
We are told that we cannot send spacecraft and the beings in order to communicate with us would have to be as intelligent . The conclusion is "determine existence of beings" . There is a logical jump here. We are only told that we cant go there and beigns have to be intelligent BUT is that the ONLY WAY TO KNOW THE EXISTENCE?? author makes a jump from inability to travel and beings ability to communicate TO determining existence. WHAT if we can sit at home and with some weird iron man technology can know the existence of beigns (thanos) ?? in this case even if Thanos cannot communicate with us, iron man can still sit at home(without travelling in spacecraft) with some weird technology !! So the author here is assuming that there is NO OTHER WAY WE CAN DETERMINE EXISTENCE .unless we send a spacecraft or beings are intelligent enough to communicate
(BTW hail hydra !)
Also, we are told that beings coomunication and space travel are SUFFICIENT consition for determining existence (result). BUT is that a necessary consdtion?? what if there are other ways too??
Framework (if you cannot prethink an assumprion ) : I want an answer choice which will tell me that there are other ways to determine existence WHEN i negate the ans choices . I want answer chooice which will tell me that given the consitions I CANNOT determine existence.
(Framework analysis will help you in telling WHAT EXACTLY you are looking for.. trust me you want to knwo what you are looking for)
- ASSUMPTION . Please read "think"
Negation : no sentient beings...as intelligent... would NOT BE capable of communicating !! >> Conclusion is strengthened. a negation must weaken.
HAIL HYDRA !!
Quote:
Understand:
-we will not be able to send spacecraft
- to communicate, the being would have to be as intelligent.
COCNLUSION : We will NOT be able to determine existence of beings ,UNLESS they are as intelligent as humans
Quote:
-assumption Q
think :
We are told that we cannot send spacecraft and the beings in order to communicate with us would have to be as intelligent . The conclusion is "determine existence of beings" . There is a logical jump here. We are only told that we cant go there and beigns have to be intelligent BUT is that the ONLY WAY TO KNOW THE EXISTENCE?? author makes a jump from inability to travel and beings ability to communicate TO determining existence. WHAT if we can sit at home and with some weird iron man technology can know the existence of beigns (thanos) ?? in this case even if Thanos cannot communicate with us, iron man can still sit at home(without travelling in spacecraft) with some weird technology !! So the author here is assuming that there is NO OTHER WAY WE CAN DETERMINE EXISTENCE .unless we send a spacecraft or beings are intelligent enough to communicate
(BTW hail hydra !)
Also, we are told that beings coomunication and space travel are SUFFICIENT consition for determining existence (result). BUT is that a necessary consdtion?? what if there are other ways too??
Framework (if you cannot prethink an assumprion ) : I want an answer choice which will tell me that there are other ways to determine existence WHEN i negate the ans choices . I want answer chooice which will tell me that given the consitions I CANNOT determine existence.
(Framework analysis will help you in telling WHAT EXACTLY you are looking for.. trust me you want to knwo what you are looking for)
Quote:
-THEN why is author even presenting this argeumnt?? Eliminate
Quote:
-What beings want has nothing to do with "determining existence" ... Negate: No beings want to communicate with us. The entire argument goes to a toss. if beings dont want to talk to us then why are we even talking about their intelligent. Additionally, even if any being is interested to talk to us, the conclusion may still break becasue we still have high technology to communicate with them..so we can determine their existence.
Quote:
- ALREADY mentioned in the passage. Plus : does not talk about determing existence
Quote:
- ASSUMPTION . Please read "think"
Quote:
- We already know this. The premises tell us that "unless they are as intelligent, they cannot communicate"..This ans choice is just reword .
Negation : no sentient beings...as intelligent... would NOT BE capable of communicating !! >> Conclusion is strengthened. a negation must weaken.
HAIL HYDRA !!
