People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. Those persons who a

Question

People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. Those persons who are perceived as forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence are generally resented. Thus, it is imprudent to appear prudent.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) People who act spontaneously are well-liked.
(B) Imprudent people act instantly and intuitively.
(C) People resent those less prudent than themselves.
(D) People who are intuitive know instantly when they like someone.
(E) It is imprudent to cause people to resent you

ryanstarr · Accepted Answer

Hello, jn0r!

First, because this is an   assumption   question, the most important thing to find is the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion comes in the last sentence: "It is imprudent to appear prudent."

Next, try to find what's problematic about the conclusion. Does it introduce new terms? Is it too extreme or definitive? Does it gloss over an intermediate point that needs to be established? I usually find it helpful to figure out how the significant words and phrases in the conclusion connect to the premises. In this case, "imprudent" and "appear prudent" are the significant words. Where in the premises have we discussed anything related to prudence and imprudence?

In this argument, "appear prudent" probably calls to "cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence." And that's a pretty fair connection--by definition, prudence involves caution and careful, deliberate consideration.

The problem comes from the "imprudent" in the conclusion. If we look in the premises for something connected to imprudence, we come up empty--there's nothing there that specifically speaks to a lack of caution or careful consideration. We do have a bit of a negative consequence introduced in the premise, however: people who show prudence in choosing a friend will likely be   resented.   Of course, being resented is not the same thing as being imprudent--and  that's  where the assumption comes into play. The job of an assumption is to repair a subtly faulty connection between the premise and the conclusion. It's not necessarily "imprudent" to curry resentment; therefore, we need to establish such a connection to make this conclusion work.

Among these answers, only (E) makes this necessary connection between the questionable term in the conclusion and the closest equivalent in the premise. As to the other answers, the question I usually ask myself is whether the answer helps me to better decide whether the conclusion is valid or not. Usually, this means that a correct answer needs to touch on at least one key term from the conclusion, as (E) does here.

(A) Knowing that people who act spontaneously (that is,  not  prudently) are well-liked doesn't have any bearing on whether people who act prudently are  not  well-liked, even though it seems as though one would be a natural consequence of the other. So this doesn't help us to decide whether the conclusion is valid or not.

(B) This answer gives us a definition for "imprudent people," but it doesn't help us to decide whether it's a good idea to "appear prudent." This is a common, particularly effective type of trap answer in CR and RC, one that uses a key term to appear correct but says the wrong thing about that key term.

(C) If anything, the natural consequence of this answer is that it's a  good  idea to appear at least as prudent as others if you want to evade their resentment, so it runs counter to the conclusion that it's a bad idea to appear prudent. This is bad news: the job of the assumption is to make the conclusion more valid, not less.

(D) This answer, like (B), gives us a sort of definition: if you're intuitive, you'll know instantly whether you like someone. But even knowing that, it's hard to make the kind of value judgment that the conclusion of the argument makes (namely, that it's a  bad  idea to appear too slow to like someone).

I hope that helps!

GAngstA · Answer

please elaborate the answer options.

Rishi2502 · Answer

please help in this one
i didn't understand the agrument that is presented

unraveled · Answer

People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. Those persons who are perceived as forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence are generally resented. Thus, it is imprudent to appear prudent.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) People who  act  spontaneously are well-liked. - WRONG. About 'acting' we are not sure.
(B) Imprudent people  act  instantly and intuitively. - WRONG. Similar to A.
(C) People resent those less prudent  than  themselves. - WRONG. A comparison is neither inferable nor true to make such conclusion.
(D) People who are intuitive  know  instantly when they like someone. - WRONG. Just like A and B 'knowing' does not make sense. Irrelevant.
(E) It is imprudent to cause people to resent you - CORRECT. "It is prudent to cause people to resent you." This breaks passage. apart. The core is about being liked instantly and intuitively. Why would someone want to be resented by people? It actually would go in other direction if this option is false.

Answer E.

KarishmaB · Answer

This is a typical LSAT type of question with less relevance to GMAT. GMAT questions are usually more real life context based, not philosophy based. But anyway, still good practice perhaps.

Premises:
  
People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. 
Those persons who are perceived as forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence are generally resented. 
( Essentially this means that those who appear prudent are generally resented.)

Conclusion:   it is imprudent to appear prudent.

We want an assumption that enables the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn. We are looking for a  sufficient  assumption.

Our conclusion talks about what is imprudent and what is not. That is not a part of the premises at all. So we need to link "resent" with what is "imprudent".

When we include option (E) with our premises, we can deduce the conclusion properly.

People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. 
Those who appear prudent are generally resented.
It is imprudent to cause people to resent you.

Conclusion:   it is imprudent to appear prudent.

Makes complete sense, right?

Answer (E)

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.

People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. Those persons who a

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

People want to be instantly and intuitively liked. Those persons who a

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