OA is A. Good job.

Today, I looked at this question from a different perspective. The conclusion in stated in the beginning and then premise is stated. Question asked which option can be raised by a supporter. So, I think the correct answer choice must be a mix of Assumption + Strengthen.


Now, placing the conclusion after the premises and adding the conclusion indicator:
Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks. Therefore, Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.


So, only A act as the required assumption to support and strengthen the conclusion. Plug-in A b4 the conclusion:

Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks. Because Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks. Therefore, Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.

OR another way to prove:
Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks. Therefore, however Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks,Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.

IMO: A. We are asked to pick a choice that a supporter of the conclusion will endorse. The passage concludes that deploying wireless networks is advantageous. So, a supporter of this conclusion will only talk about the advantages and not mention the disadvantages. Which of the choices support wireless networks? Choice A.

My answer is A.
The passage specifies wireless networks are useful in cities as well as rural communities.

• Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.
>> Yes. This is how I see the passage.
• Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.
>> Not mentioned in passage.
• Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.
>> Not related here.
• The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.
>> Not mentioned about expense.
• Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses.
>> This sentence can not be inferred from passage given.

A. The answer to the question must support the point that wireless networks should be used in even urban areas.

premise:Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.

Another Premise talks about the benefits of wireless networks in rural areas.

The supporter of the argument would most likely agree that even in urban areas they can be successfully implemented and can be benefitted.

+1 for A.

B is essentially out of scope. Even if it were in scope, B would in effect, weaken the argument. It says wireless networks work better in rural communities(low density) than in urban environment. While the conclusion is the Wireless networks should be widely used in urban environment.

Two or three things to consider, firstly in such instances more than premise and conclusion identification it is more Imp to understand what the argument is stating, secondly automatically eliminate those answers where one of the premises are being weakened. Concentrate on the answer choice which strengthens either both or doesn't weaken both. A meets that criteria.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Argument is:
- wireless is good in rural areas.
- would therefore be good in urban areas

This argument is quite weak. The first reaction is "but what works in rural areas may not work in cities"! A nicely resolves this issue.

Argument is now:
- wireless is good in rural areas.
- no obstacles to transferring this to urban areas
- would therefore be good in urban areas

Posted from my mobile device

I don't think scope matters here. We are bringing outside information "in" to strengthen the argument.

The much much bigger issue is the weakening, which you discussed.

Posted from my mobile device

I have found this one very tricky. I didn't understand that this one was a strengthen question because I didn't find the conclusion. In stimulus like this one, how can you find the conclusion?

HERE IS OE

The conclusion of this argument is: Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.
The premise of the argument is: Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Thus, we are concluding that wireless networks will meet the needs of cities because they have met the needs of rural communities. The assumption we must make is that rural areas and cities are comparable in terms of our ability to implement these networks and make them work.

We are asked to choose an answer choice that strengthens the argument. A supporter of the argument will affirm this assumption. Answer choice A does this nicely.

Answer choice B actually goes AGAINST the conclusion--it says that wireless networks work much better in areas where population is low. Thus, it casts doubt on the idea that wireless networks will be a good solution for cities.

The argument claims that wide dissemination of wireless access is now a practical way to meet urban needs, based on the evidence of its successful use in rural areas. The author then must assume that urban areas provide no additional problems for wireless use.

(A) CORRECT. This choice confirms an assumption of the argument and thus strengthens the conclusion.

(B) This choice weakens the argument because it damages the assumption that urban areas pose no extra problems for wireless use.

(C) This choice is irrelevant because it provides information about another rural area; however, the conclusion concerns urban areas.

(D) This choice weakens the argument because it damages the assumption that urban areas pose no extra problems for wireless use.

(E) This choice is an irrelevant distinction. The argument mentioned all three groups as in need of this service. The suggestion that one group needs it more than the others is irrelevant to the conclusion.
_________________

I thought that this was an inference question, because the question stem stated a "supporter of the argument" and Strengthen questions require "if true" in the question stem, and because there was no conclusion indicator in the passage.

oh wow..really? 700 lvl? looks more like a 600 to me..
we need to provide evidence that wireless is better than land-based.
in order to do so..I immediately thought about a possible weakener..what if quality of internet is not the same? thus, a negation of this statement would be a good strengthener..

A - looks good..
B - so what? does it support the argument? NO. out.
C - out of scope
D - cost of the installation is out of scope.
E - comparison between households and schools/business - out of scope.

as we can see..only A stands.

At first difficult to understand what the question is trying to say (Maybe its because of the irregular formatting? :-/)

Now, at first glance it seems there are two premises. A closer look explains that the second sentence is a premise and the first sentence is built up on the second.
B) Although new info is allowed, nothing is said about population density in rural or urban areas.
C) Iceland is a country. Illogical comparison.
D) The word 'expense' put me off the track. But this option is similar to B. Nothing is said about the large buildings stuff.
E) Irrelevant.

A by poe. I do not like the quality of the question though. Anyone else agree with me?

Hi,

Thank you for posting such a good question. After reading the comments I think I did not understand the argument. My understanding was : Wireless network successful in cities and now rural areas are also finding several benefits but I think what author meant was vice versa . Please help me in understanding this argument. . Would really appreciate it.

Also is it ok to practice GMAT questions from sources other OG ?? . I find this question format quite different. Please advise.

Regards
Megha

What's wrong with C? Doesn't it directly support the argument?

The conditions in Iceland may not be same as conditions in the villages where wireless networks are being considered. Therefore this reasoning in not a very strong supporter for the argument. Nonetheless option C does have a weak support for the argument, but the support provided by option A is stronger and hence better.

Negate both statement and see which one weakens the argument more. Negativng option A weakens the argument, almost to the point of breaking it down. Negating option C weakens as well, but generalising from one example is not a severe weakener (or a strengthener).

I ignored the tense at first so that I didn't recognize which is the premise and which is the conclusion, or the reasoning direction.
Because of the benefits of wireless networks in rural areas, the author deduced that the application of wireless networks would be a practical way in urban areas.
So A perfectly eliminates other negative impacts and thus strengthen the argument.
_________________

Dissemination :- the act of spreading something, especially information, widely; circulation.
The argument claims that wide dissemination of wireless access is now a practical way to meet urban needs, based on the evidence of its successful use in rural areas. The author then must assume that urban areas provide no additional problems for wireless use.
A supporter would cite something that bolsters the argument.

Conclusion - Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses
Premise - Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

One can 'directionally' prephrase the answer, we have to prove that wireless dissemination in cities is a good idea and the evidence given to support it is that it works well in rural areas, if somehow we can link the rural wireless effectiveness to the urban setting we are good to go!

Moving to the answer choices.
A - Good! Makes the connection between rural and urban conditions. Mark as a contender
B - Oops! If wireless works better in low density areas (aka rural areas) it is a problem, because cities might not be low density areas. Hence reject.
C - Great that Iceland uses wireless and it is rural but it still misses the rural to urban connect. Hence reject.
D - Nah! If this is true wireless in cities not a good idea.
E - The argument is not about rich or poor neighborhoods, it is about wireless in cities. This choice is way off the mark.

Hence A.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________