The primary way in which a person listens to music can be described as

Question

The primary way in which a person listens to music can be described as either active or passive. It was found that people in the mountain states of the US listen to music in a more active manner i.e. they listen specifically to listen rather than being in a space where music is playing in the background. On the other hand, people in the coastal states of the US consume their music in a more passive manner. Therefore, record labels should conduct more marketing activities in the mountain states because of the higher number of active listeners there compared to the same in the coastal states.

Which of the following indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning?

A. He doesn't take into account the possibility that there might be far less restaurants and pubs, places where music plays in the background, in the mountain states.

B. He doesn't consider listeners who consume their music in both possible ways.

C. Coastal states can have more active listeners than mountain states.

D. Marketing in a region doesn’t always mean more sales in that region.

E. Recommendations are always more effective than marketing activities.

Cezarel · Accepted Answer

I went with answer C, even though I think people get tripped because of an unstated assumption of the argument.

Premise 1: There is a higher concentration of active listeners in the mountains (as a % of population).
Premise 2: There is a higher concentration of passive listeners on the coasts (as a % of population). 
 Unstated Premise: Active listeners are a "better" category of listeners (whatever that means). 
-----------------------
Conclusion: Record labels should focus on active listeners.

Answer A: Less pubs means less "passive" listening, therefore it goes against our recommendation of focusing on active listeners.
Answer B: While consuming music in both ways is possible, we don't know the proportion of people doing this type of listening.
Answer C: Assuming a higher population on coastal states compared to mountainside, even if we have a smaller % of active listeners in the general public, numerically they could be more people than in the mountain regions. The author fails to recognize that by focusing on coastal states we could have a higher public of active listeners.
Answer D: Misses the point entirely, we don't talk about sales, we talk about marketing.
Answer E: Same as D.

When I read the argument and the question, I was expecting the correct answer to go against the unstated assumption, something like "the active listeners are NOT a better category of listeners than passive ones". I think many candidates fall in this trap of internalizing an answer of their own and panicking when it's not present in the options, but I think it's possible to overcome it by understanding the link between premises and conclusion before attacking the answer choices.

jrk23 · Answer

I think C,D & E are straight out.

Between A & B, i Think "B" can be the answer. lets wait for the official answer.

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

Bunuel 
Can you share the source and the OE. It needs tall assumptions if the answer is really C and does not follow from the argument.
Choice C goes completely against the premise that tells you about the preferences of Mountain and costal dwellers.
Going against the premises to make an assumption like this what is mentioned in C would be far from ideal for as an answer.

egmat · Answer

The premise tells you mountain states have a higher rate of active listening (more people there listen actively).
Choice C says coastal states can have more active listeners in total.

These don't contradict. Here's how:

Mountain States:
 
 Population: 1,000 people 
  80% active listeners = 800 active listeners

Coastal States:
 
 Population: 10,000 people 
  20% active listeners = 2,000 active listeners

See it? Both are true:
 
 Mountain people are more likely to listen actively (80% > 20%) — premise satisfied 
 Coastal states have more active listeners total (2,000 > 800) — Choice C satisfied

The author concludes: "Market more in mountain states because of the higher number of active listeners"  But the author only knows about the higher rate, not the higher number. That's the flaw.

If coastal states have much larger populations, they could have way more active listeners despite the lower percentage. Just because a higher percentage of mountain people listen actively doesn't mean there are more active listeners there. You need to know the population size. A small group where 80% do something can have fewer people doing it than a huge group where only 20% do it.

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

Hi,

I understand the justification for how this answer can be accepted but the passage states that

"It was found that   people in the mountain states  of the US listen to music in a more active manne r i.e. they listen specifically to listen rather than being in a space where music is playing in the background"

If I read the bolded section above, for me, it does not translate to "higher rate of active listening". It tells me their absolute preference as a whole. That's the reason, it is ambiguous. It simply states a fact that mountain people (as a whole - underlined earlier) listen to music in an active manner.

I believe the comparison here is of how the music is being listened in a region without referring to demographics (strictly going by the passage). The proportions of people bifurcated between active and passive at both regions is not mentioned at all.

The author does not talk about  rates of people listening  and that is my reason to not align with the answers. 
 res can go to them l

egmat · Answer

When the passage says "people in the mountain states listen to music in a more active manner," this IS a statement about rate/tendency/proportion, even if it's not explicitly phrased that way.

Think about it: if I say "Americans eat more fast food," what does that mean? It means a higher proportion of Americans eat fast food, or Americans eat fast food more frequently. It's a generalization about the group's behavior.

Similarly, "mountain people listen more actively" means mountain dwellers, as a group, have a higher tendency toward active listening compared to coastal people. It's comparing the typical behavior of one group versus another.

But here's the key: this tells us NOTHING about absolute numbers. Even if 80% of mountain people listen actively vs. 20% of coastal people, coastal states could still have more total active listeners if their population is 10x larger.The passage compares behavioral tendencies (how people in each region typically listen), and the author concludes based on total numbers (more active listeners). That's the flaw—confusing "happens more often per capita" with "happens more often in total."

Does this make sense now?

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

As I mentioned earlier, I understand the justification of the answer. 
I only want to mention that "people in the mountain states listen to music in a more active manner," refers to the "way" or "method" of listening to the music. The answer would have been great if the statement said "majority/most people in the mountain states listen to active music (if it was a form of music though")

The example " Americans eat more fast food,"  is not about how Americans eat fast food. It's about what they like and that is perfectly fine when it comes to the explanation that here "proportions/rate" should definitely be considered. The whole scenario changes when you write  "Americans eat food hurriedly or in a hurry,"  The difference is in the nature of the food (fast) and the way it is consumed (hurriedly)

The author concludes by saying "  Therefore, record labels should conduct more marketing activities in the mountain states because of the higher number of active listeners there compared to the same in the coastal states."

Let's say we consider option A, we have lesser number of opportunities of people listening to background music hence people are forced to become active listeners. However, if that's the case then marketing activities in the mountains would not bring any benefit to the record labels as people would anyways not be interested in active listening. Because it was never their choice rather a mandate because of the surroundings.

I still get the way the answer has been constructed and its justification. However

egmat · Answer

When you say "Americans eat food hurriedly," how many Americans need to eat hurriedly for this to be true?

If only 2% of Americans ate hurriedly  → Would you say "Americans eat food hurriedly"? No.
 If 80% of Americans ate hurriedly  → Would you say "Americans eat food hurriedly"? Yes.

See? Even when describing HOW they do something (manner), you're implicitly describing HOW MANY do it that way (rate).  
 You can't generalize about a group's behavior without claiming that behavior is common in that group.( which means a good PROPORTION of people engage in that behaviour)

Imagine two scenarios:

Scenario A: 
 
 90% of mountain people listen actively 
 10% of coastal people listen actively

Scenario B: 
 
 10% of mountain people listen actively 
 90% of coastal people listen actively

Which scenario matches "people in the mountain states listen in a more active manner"?
Obviously Scenario A.

But WHY? Because when you say "people in   do X," you're claiming X is COMMON there. That's a rate statement, even without the word "rate."
  
You can't describe a group's behavior without describing how common that behavior is. Manner and rate are inseparable in generalizations. I hope this clears it up, but if there's even an iota of doubt in your head, please let me know, I'd be happy to help.

quialias · Answer

I really don't agree with the answer, its straight away opposite to a premise in the paragraph itself, as far as I have practiced, some kind of analysis/ extra premises which negates the author's reasoning should have been the answer.

After reading the above statement, please let me know how C is the answer still.

After reading the above statement, please let me know how C is the answer still.

miag · Answer

Hi,

I understand where you are coming from and you are right in some cases - this is the approach followed. But it's not a one size fits all that this will work or be one of the options for all such flaw questions. If you scroll up to see @egmat's explanation the nuance is clearly explained in terms of how the language in the passage should be interpreted as a rate and not the actual number. If you follow this reasoning, then it directly leads us to option C. It is the simple logic that just because a% > b% doesnt mean the number(a) > number (b) because we don't know the total sample we are comparing for. For e.g. 60% of 30 > 40% of 50, but 18 < 20..

Hope this helps!

The primary way in which a person listens to music can be described as

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

The primary way in which a person listens to music can be described as

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