AkshdeepS wrote:
carcass wrote:
While critics have written off the APG company’s new Model T chandelier, owing to its poor sales across the globe, the Model T is actually not a complete failure because it has managed to sell 10,000 pieces in Eastern Europe, a market in which rival companies haven’t even managed to sell 5,000 pieces of their respective chandeliers.
Which of the following is assumed in the above argument?
(A) If a chandelier does not sell well in the Eastern European market, then it is a complete failure.
(B) The Eastern European market is the biggest market for chandeliers.
(C) If a chandelier sells well in the Eastern European market, then it cannot be considered a complete failure.
(D) The Model T is the only type of chandelier manufactured by the APG company.
(E) If the Model T had not sold in good numbers in Eastern Europe, then it could have been considered a complete failure.
VeritasKarishma : Please help with answer choice A and C. Both seem correct in logic though I marked C.
This is what the argument says:
It is not a complete failure because it has managed to sell well in Eastern Europe.
So "selling well in Eastern Europe" is sufficient to not be a complete failure.
This is what (C) says.
(C) If a chandelier sells well in the Eastern European market, then it cannot be considered a complete failure.
That selling well in Eastern Europe is sufficient to not be a complete failure. Note that the if condition is a sufficient condition.
If A happens, then B happens - A is sufficient for B to happen.
Since our argument tells us that A happens (sell well in Eastern Europe), we can conclude that B happens (not a complete failure).
So our argument does assume (C).
Let's consider (E) now:
(E) If the Model T had not sold in good numbers in Eastern Europe, then it could have been considered a complete failure.
Note that the if condition is a sufficient condition. We know what happens if we sell well in Eastern Europe. Our argument assumes based on selling well in Eastern Europe.
But (E) talks about what could happen if A does not happen (not sell well in Eastern Europe). Does our argument depend on what happens when we do not sell well in Eastern Europe? No. We have no information on that in our argument. So this is not what is assumed by the argument.
Also note:
Given: If A, then B
Implied:
A leads to B
Not B leads to not A
Not A does not imply not B
B does not imply A
So given option (C), argument says A leads to B which is implied.
Given option (E), argument says "not A" could lead to "not B". This is not implied. So (E) is not an assumption.
If this all seems to have gotten a bit convoluted, check:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/1 ... tatements/