Ythex has developed a small diesel engine that produces 30 percent les

GMATNinja

When you say, "In order for (D) to work, we'd have to assume that the level of difficulty will actually prevent Marania from enforcing the law" does this mean that even if the law was only slightly effective (10% of the population abided to it), Onez engines could still sell well because 10% of the population now abides to the new ban?

What if this small percentage of the population already had a Onez engine?

Thank you!

Your analysis is conflating "difficult to enforce" with "won't actually be enforced that well." We just can't make that leap. Something can be difficult to enforce and still actually BE enforced -- for instance, maybe it's tough to enforce security measures in modern airports, but security officials go to great lengths to enforce these measures even though it's hard. We can't assume that the security officials just give up, or only partially enforce the rules, because it's difficult.

Similarly, we can't assume that the difficulty of enforcing the pollution ban will actually prevent the Maranian government from enforcing the rules. So there is no way to say that only a portion of the population will abide by the ban -- the government could still enforce the rules really well, even though it's difficult to do so.

I hope that helps!

Hi Experts GMATNinja KarishmaB Bunuel egmat mgmat

I get the point that (E) when negated breaks the conclusion but I think there is a little issue with (E), and that's the reason I choose (D). I know I am wrong and that's why wanted your feedback on this issue.

In (E) But in the Q stem it says that the government plans to implement the within the next 2 years and currently there are no competitors. There may or may not be new companies which can come up with better cost effective designs. No company will inform beforehand if they are developing something new and can come up suddenly once the ban is implemented. Can you please elaborate more on this thought.

Thanks!

An assumption is what is necessary for the conclusion to hold, not sufficient.
It is necessary that at least as of now, other companies have not developed such an engine. If they have, then the Ythex engine will have competition so we cannot say that it will sell well.

Another assumption would be that no one is able to develop such an engine in the next two years too.
Another assumption is that most warehousing businesses will not switch to another kind of engine.
etc.

Hope the point is clear. Let me know if you have any doubts.

Hi KarishmaB

Thanks for your response.

As you mentioned that the assumption might not be completely sufficient always and you pointed out other possible assumptions.

.

In this case this assumption can be false and other assumption might be true - "such as no other company is able to develop a new engine".

I am a bit confused.

Thanks again!

Our entire argument is based on "no competition for Ythex if the ban is passed in 2 years"

Because Onez (a popular brand) will not be able to retool in 2 years, we are concluding that Ythex (Onez's main competitor) will sell well. But we are assuming that no one else will have a diesel engine within specifications either in 2 years.
For this, both should be true - 'no other company has made such an engine as yet' and 'no other company will be able to make it in the next 2 years either'

DmitryFarber KarishmaB MartyMurray GMATGuruNY GMATNinjaTwo
I request one of you to review my thought process. Thank you for bearing with me, as I tag multiple experts most of the times. It is my way of ensuring that I get at least one response as early as possible. Thanks again!

Did I make medium question more complicated? Or is my thinking clear? Definitely needs work, but what specifically needs to be worked on?

My thought process was mostly similar to what Dmitry Farber has mentioned above. But I did not think of the part of just mentioning one competitor until I read E.

Nonetheless, to evaluate this sentence and evaluate if there is another way that Ythex engine could be banned, I did the following: "The Maranian government plans to ban within the next two years the use of diesel engines with more than 80 percent of current diesel engine particulate emissions in Marania"

Ythex diesel engines produce 30% less pollution than its rival's. Let's assume Onez engines currently produce 70% of emissions. Therefore, Ythex will produce, 70% of 70%, total 49% pollution.
Govt. will ban any diesel engine that produces more than 80% of current emissions. Let's assume the max pollution is 70%, therefore anything above 80% of 70%, that is 56% will be banned. Ythex is below that limit. This helped me eliminate D. Theoretically as well, even if it is difficult to enforce, we cannot assume that ban won't be enforced.

I was stuck on A, but realized it is more irrelevant. How does the size matter? Probably a tricky distraction.

Finally E is the answer.

The passage in this question is not written very well. So, it's not 100 percent clear what "80 percent of current diesel engine particulate emissions in Marania" means. At the same time, it appears to mean "80 percent of the typical particulate emissions of a diesel engine in Marania."

So, since, the passage says that Onez engines are "now widely used in Marania," it appears that Onez engines are typical diesel engines now used in Marania. So, it's likely that an Onez engine produces about 100 percent of the typical emissions typically produced by a diesel engine in Marania, not 70 percent, as you suggested is possible.

Also, since the passage says, "Onez will probably not be able to retool its engine to reduce emissions to reach this target," which is 70 percent of the typical emissions currently produced by a diesel engine in Marania, it appears that an Onez engine produces significantly more than 70 percent of the typical emissions of a diesel engine in Marania.

So, long story short, your reasoning doesn't fit the information provided and was not necessary.

Yes, "difficult" does not mean "will not occur."

Exactly.

Yes, E is a necessary assumption.

There is no Math required here because frankly we can't do any Math. We don't know what exactly the '80% of current' means. All I can say for sure is that emissions need to be reduced; new Ythex engines have acceptable levels while Onex engines cannot be re-tooled on time to become acceptable. That's all.

I eliminated (D) because I have (E). Else I would worry about (D). It is weaker than (E) since 'difficult to enforce' doesn't mean will not be enforced but 'difficult to enforce' does mean issues in enforcing. In another context I might take it to mean that Onex engines will still be used.
Since the entire argument revolves around competition and the point being made is that Ythex will flourish because it will not have competition, so an assumption about no competition from another player makes more sense. Hence I chose (E). It was a close call though.

Can you please help me out here ?

I am able to eliminate all options (even E) :')

In E, "The other manufacturers of small diesel engines in Marania, if there are any, have not produced an engine as popular and clean-running as Ythex's new engine"
Why do we have to assume it is as clean running as Ythex's.... what if the alternative is worse than Ythex's but acceptable under the new law? Hence, not a MBT statement. Not able to digest the logic of comparison here.

Expanding on this.. maybe users just wanna comply in a cheaper way and they go for this alternative (which could probably be cheaper) even more cheaper than Ythex's (considering Ythex is higher quality), the arguement goes for a toss.

I was able to prethink the assumption that no alternatives to Ythex exist in the market, hence sales will do well.

please let me know what I can do better here

This gets to an interesting complication about details in necessary assumptions. Details in a POSITIVE statement make it less likely to be necessary, but that's not the case for negative statements. Consider this brief argument:

Tim doesn't feel well today.
He must have a virus.

Clearly, the author is assuming that Tim's illness wasn't caused by something other than a virus. So what about these possible answers?

A) Every time Tim is unwell, he has a respiratory virus.
B) Tim didn't overindulge in tequila last night at a movie premiere in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Is either of these necessary?
A) No. This would be a fantastic strengthener, but it isn't a necessary assumption at all. First, we don't need to know that ALL of Tim's illnesses are caused by viruses--just this one. Second, he doesn't need to have a respiratory virus in particular. If we negate A, we get "Sometimes when Tim is unwell, he does not have a respiratory virus." This doesn't mess up the argument. He could still have a virus (respiratory or otherwise) this time.

B) YES! This might seem oddly specific. But it's necessary that this did NOT happen. If he DID overindulge at that party in Tulsa, then maybe that's why he doesn't feel well today. That's what the negation would tell us.

So basically, if an assumption says that some specific thing did NOT happen, don't let those specifics put you off. Just ask "If those things WERE true, would it hurt the argument?" Getting to E in the Ythex question, if some competitor DID produce a popular, clean-running engine, then maybe Ythex's will sell well. Notice that this actually makes the answer better than a more open-ended answer along the lines of your prediction. If E just said "No alternatives exist," then the negation would be that alternatives DO exist. But that's not terribly compelling. Just because alternatives exist, why shouldn't Ythex's model do well? It does a bit to weaken, but it's not as devastating as knowing that there are alternatives that are both popular and viable.

The argument concludes that if the Maranian government passes the ban on diesel engines with more than 80 percent of current particulate emissions, Ythex's cleaner engine will sell well in Marania. This conclusion relies on some key assumptions.

Let's analyze the choices to find the assumption the argument depends on:

A. Marania's warehousing and transshipment business buys more diesel engines of any size than other types of engines.
This choice talks about the type of engines preferred by Marania's businesses but doesn't address the assumption needed to ensure Ythex's engine will sell well, specifically in the context of competition and emission standards.

B. Ythex is likely to be able to reduce the cost of its small diesel engine within the next two years.
While reducing the cost could boost sales, the argument does not claim that price reduction is necessary for Ythex to sell well. This isn't a required assumption for the argument.

C. The Maranian government is generally favorable to anti-pollution regulations.
This choice is related to the likelihood of the ban being passed, but the passage of the ban is already assumed in the argument. The assumption should instead focus on why Ythex's engine will succeed after the ban, not whether the ban will pass.

D. The government's ban on high levels of pollution caused by diesel engines, if passed, will not be difficult to enforce.
This choice strengthens the idea that the ban will have its intended effect and ensure that high-emission engines will be removed from the market. If the ban is difficult to enforce, Onez's engine might continue to be used, weakening the argument that Ythex will sell well. This is a crucial assumption.

E. The other manufacturers of small diesel engines in Marania, if there are any, have not produced an engine as popular and clean-running as Ythex's new engine.
This choice is important because if other manufacturers already have engines that meet the emission standards, Ythex might face competition, which could hurt its sales. This assumption is necessary to ensure Ythex's competitive advantage.

Between D and E, both seem relevant. However, E addresses a more direct competitive threat to Ythex. If other manufacturers have clean engines, Ythex may not have the advantage the argument assumes. Therefore, the argument depends on E being true.

Correct answer: E

GMATNinja

The conclusion in the argument is - 'So if the ban is passed, the Ythex engine ought to sell well in Marania after that time'.

Ythen engine will sell well in Marania, only if the ban is passed. The term 'if', made me select Option C as the assumption for the argument. i.e. The Maranian government is generally favorable to anti-pollution regulations.

Kindly share your feedback on how to eliminate option C, and how to avoid such a mistake in the exam.

Thanks!

Two things here:

1) Since we already know the government plans to enact the ban, it doesn't really help to know that the government supports anti-pollution regulations in general. This one is already planned, so we know they're in favor of it.
2) More importantly, the presence of IF actually means that we don't care if the ban is passed! The conclusion is conditional: If x, then y. So it's only making a prediction about what will happen if the ban is passed. That doesn't require the ban to be likely to pass. For instance, I might say "If you rob a bank, you will be arrested." This doesn't mean I think you will rob a bank. It just means that I have a belief about what WOULD happen if you DID happen to rob a bank. I'm not assuming you'll do it, and as long as you don't, my conclusion is unaffected.

Actually, the "if" is the reason why (C) doesn't matter. We don't need to worry about how LIKELY it is for the ban to pass. All we need to think about is what's going to happen IF the ban does pass.

Even if there's only a TINY chance that the ban actually passes, that's fine -- the argument is only concerned with the hypothetical situation in which the ban does pass, and the likelihood of the ban actually passing has no bearing on the argument.

I hope that helps!

I could prethink that future competition can hamper Ythex's predicted sale. However, I did not chose option E due to usage of the verb "have".

E. The other manufacturers of small diesel engines in Marania, if there are any, have not produced an engine as popular and clean running as Ythex’s new engine.

Per my understanding, "have" implies the current situation. But, author has explicitly stated that currently, the main rival is Onez. Had this option been rephrased as:
"The other manufacturers of small diesel engines in Marania, if there are any, will not be able to produce an engine as popular and clean running as Ythex’s new engine.", or
"The other manufacturers of small diesel engines in Marania, if there are any, cannot produce an engine as popular and clean running as Ythex’s new engine."
Then we could still talk about future competition in this answer choice.

I was able to understand why the option I chose earlier (option D) is incorrect. But, what's wrong with the above reasoning? Please help!

Aditi_03

Keep in mind that stronger statements are a liability for assumption answers. One reason is that when negated, they become weaker. So when you make an assumption about what CAN NEVER happen, the negation just tells us what MIGHT be able to happen. Contrast the negation of E to the negation of your version:

E) Other mfrs HAVE produced a popular, clean-running engine.
Okay, this has actually happened. If so, then regardless of who the "main rival" is, perhaps these models will undercut Ythex's sales if Onez's is banned.

Alternate E) Other mfrs CAN produce a popular, clean-running engine.
Hmm. They CAN, but will they? Just because other companies have the ability to do something doesn't tell us that they will do so. This doesn't knock down the argument nearly as effectively as the negation of the original E.