Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for

Question

Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award should not submit book review articles that review more than three books at a time. This is because editors for the Boatwright Psychology Review will not publish a book review article if it is too lengthy and cumbersome to read. In their submission guidelines, the editors explicitly state that review articles that cover more than three books at a time are considered too lengthy and cumbersome to read.

Which of the following statements represents an assumption upon which the argument relies?

(A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

(B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.

(C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.

(D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.

(E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

aditya1818 · Answer

(A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.- Incorrect.  Infact, the opposite of the statement is the requirement.

(B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.

(C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors. -  Incorrect, certain lengthy specifically is not specified, it is said that it shouldn't be too lengthy exceeding more than 3 reviews.

(D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.-  Incorrect, nowhere this is mentioned about the preference.

(E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.-  Correct, the first statement sets out the requirement for the nomination.

Dereno · Answer

Those Psychologists who write book reviews, if they wish to get nominated for the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award (BWPRA) must submit book review articles.

This book review article submitted should not exceed 3 books. The author adds his point that : such review articles which has more than 3 books, will not be considered for publication. The reason behind it was - lengthy, cumbersome and time consuming.

Let’s see what the actual editor’s guidelines during submission have to say  EXPLICITLY  - “  The review articles that cover more than 3 Books are considered lengthy and cumbersome “.  This doesn’t beat around the bush, no where in the guidelines was it mentioned review articles more than 3 books will not be taken into consideration or banned or not reviewed.

In this light, let’s jump Into the options (  Remember all assumption options, have to pass the negation test to stand the trail).

(A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read.

The choice of word : MOST is a blanket word covering a huge gamut of books ( anything greater than 50%), while the question sticks to a specific number threshold - 3 ( as Explicitly stated by the Editors Book Review guidelines).Hence, wrong.

(B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award.

This option confuses between nominations and getting the award. As, nominations are a precursor towards the award. Hence, ruled out for wrong comparison.

(C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors.

This seems a tricky option - limited to certain length, as the mind is pre fixed to number 3 ( threshold). This option seems tempting. But, if u see the last time, the actual guidelines by Book reviewers explicitly mentions, if book review greater than 3 books it’s considered to be lengthy, cumbersome. Not a fixed constraint. Hence, Wrong.

(D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books.

No where is the preference on topic or size is mentioned. They expressed their opinion to the authors (psychologists) to consider the review books as less as possible. This doesn’t necessarily mean imposing fix size restrictions. Hence, Wrong.

(E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review.

This option clearly states, only if u publish in the BWPR , you can claim yourself eligible for the BWPRA. The question is pertaining to the guidelines and limitations for publishing a review article.

Negation test:  To be nominated for the BWPRA, the article need NOT be PUBLISHED in the BWPR. This contradicts the fact in the question. The outcome is a Sure NO.

Option E is the correct answer.

arushi118 · Answer

First the passage mentions that to be nominated for the award, the review articles should not review more than 3 books. And then the reason it gives for this is that for the book review to be published, articles should not cover more than 3 books.
So we have to assume that for the book review to be nominated for the award, it should also be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review. And this is exactly what E says.  Hence E is the answer.

Pratyaksh1907 · Answer

Right after reading the argument once, you would be able to eliminate all the choices in terms of context. Upon re- reading the stimulus, one would be able to identify the scope or what the conclusion implies to, and, therefore, would be able to match only one possible contender, Option E. That's exactly what happened with me lol. The argument is basically trying to comunicate is that, "To get your review nominated, it has to be published, and to get it published, psychologist needs to follow the guidelines of publication. Hence, don't submit an article which contain review of more than 3 books at a time." Therefore, for nomination, getting it published is a prerequisite. (A) The book reviews articles that covers the most books must be the lengthiest and most cumbersome article to read. This is an extreme and tries to prove something that is beyond the scope of the argument (B) If a book review article is published in the Boatwright Psychology Review, that article will receive the prestigious Boatwright Psychology Review award. Completely illogical and irrelevant. (C) All articles published in the Boatwright Psychology Review must be limited to a certain length specified by the editors. No, the argument only states that for the Boatwright's editor, more than 3 books review is lengthy and cumbersome. (D) The Boatwright Psychology Review editors generally prefer book review articles that cover one book rather than books. Preference is not equal to action. (E) To be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award, a psychologist's book review article must be published in the Boatwright Psychology Review. Absolutely true, for a nomination, Psychologist's book review article if NOT MUST be published (scenario), then there may exist an another way to get the review nominated. Therefore, the conclusion of not more than 3 book reviews would be irrelevant then because in this case, following of the submission guidelines is not necessary. Hope this helps, please feel free to reply with your thoughts if you think I missed anything. Thanks

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The author concludes that psychologists who want their work to be nominated for the Boatwright Psychology Review award should only submit articles containing reviews on three or fewer books. The evidence follows: the Boatwright Psychology Review basically will not publish any book review article that reviews more than three books. Look back over the conclusion and evidence, and you'll realize that they aren't really talking about the same thing. The conclusion is about what one should do in order to get his work nominated for the award, and the evidence is about what one should do in order to get his work published. That's a classic scope shift. The only way to make these two different subjects relate to one another is to assume that one must have a review article published in the Review in order to be eligible for the award. Otherwise the evidence about publication requirements would have no relevance to the conclusion about nomination requirements.  (E) expresses this central assumption faithfully, tying the evidence concerning publishing to the conclusion concerning nominations.

An 800 test taker knows that the logical gap that results from a scope shift can often be bridged by an assumption.

(A) While the stimulus suggests that articles covering more books are longer, it nowhere suggests that this proportional relationship carries out to the extremes. What makes for the longest articles isn't central to the evidence and conclusion, and hence need not be assumed in order for this argument to work.

(B) overstates the link between the two subjects. The argument in the stimulus assumes that publication is necessary for a book to be nominated, while (B) says that publication guarantees that a book will win the award. The argument doesn't concern itself with which book might win the award, so (B) isn't directly relevant to it.

(C) is too broad to be necessary here. The argument concerns book review articles, which do come with certain length restrictions. But (C) deals with all articles, and we don't know nor do we really care anything about articles besides book reviews that Boatwright may contain (editorials, feature articles, etc.). These may or may not have length restrictions, but this particular argument doesn't depend on this issue.

(D) makes an irrelevant distinction that doesn't directly pertain to the central issue: what must be done with an article before it can be nominated for the prestigious award. One book and two books are both on the acceptable side of the length restriction—no distinction between them need be assumed here.

Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for

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

Psychologists who wish to have one of their book review nominated for

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