CR - television penetration

[thanghnvn]

Ron, Manhantan experts, pls, help

according to Kaplan book, (suppose we follow the book). a strengthener can be 1- a new information which confirm the assumption or 2-new evidence which directly support the conclution.

choice C above is type 2. in this type, the correct answer dose not relate to any assumption. Is this right?

if we have a choice following:

cost of plasma technology is not reduced and the salary of the residents is not higher in the future.

then, this choice is also a strengthener. it is type 1. that choice confirm the assumption that the relation between salary and cost dose not change.

Is my thinking correct?, pls, comment.

[tim]

If I'm understanding your question correctly, your proposed example would be a good example of a strengthener..

Suppose we follow the MGMAT book instead of a different source? :)

[thanghnvn]

Ron, Tim, Manhantan expert, pls confirm my folloing thinking.

one way to strenghen an argument is to increase belief in an assumption. Most of questions in OG book belong to this type-type 1.

Another way of strenthening an argument is to provide new information which directly support the conclusion. I think this problem in this thread belongs to this type. The oa C here directly support the conclusion. Type 2.

because an asumption of this question in the thread can be " salary of the resident dose not rise", an correct answer of type 1 will be " salary of the resident dose not rise more than cost of making television"

what I want to say is that there are 2 types of strengthener: one type which expose or validate an assumption, one type which directly support the conclusion.

Is my thinking correct? pls, comment to help us. Thank you.

[jnelson0612]

Ron, Tim, Manhantan expert, pls confirm my folloing thinking.

one way to strenghen an argument is to increase belief in an assumption. Most of questions in OG book belong to this type-type 1.

Another way of strenthening an argument is to provide new information which directly support the conclusion. I think this problem in this thread belongs to this type. The oa C here directly support the conclusion. Type 2.

because an asumption of this question in the thread can be " salary of the resident dose not rise", an correct answer of type 1 will be " salary of the resident dose not rise more than cost of making television"

what I want to say is that there are 2 types of strengthener: one type which expose or validate an assumption, one type which directly support the conclusion.

Is my thinking correct? pls, comment to help us. Thank you.

Hi,
In my opinion, you're sort of right. Usually, to strengthen a conclusion you just say that an assumption is true OR you add an additional premise that helps support the conclusion. I assume that those are the two types that you are talking about. My personal belief is that the second type is really affirming an assumption; anything that I need to help me get from the stated premise to the conclusion is an assumption. But anyway, I don't think that this distinction is particularly important in helping you to get to the correct answer. :-)

[subrat308]

Hi Experts,

This question is kind of a controversial one.

I am confused why A was rejected. In my opinion, both can be treated as correct answer, though I know that only 1 can be correct in GMAT.

A) This was rejected because it never said that,people will stop buying televisions even if they gather to watch televisions at house parties. I see this as a strong contender, may be TVs are so expensive that people prefer to watch at house parties rather than buying it.

Note: we are strengthening, we are not concluding. So reason might not be sure shot, though might strengthen.

C)This was accepted because, people are purchasing new devices such as video-enabled personal digital assistants and music players more increasingly. Where did it say that people will not buy Tvs for that reason?? on the contrary a strong case can be made saying that now a days people use electronic media more for their entertainment, that's why they are more likely to buy Tv.

On the other hand as it was suggested earlier, this can be correct saying, people are more inclined towards new devices other than tv so they are less likely to buy TV. So it can be correct.

So strong case can be made for both A and C. Sorry if I am missing something very silly.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Experts,

This question is kind of a controversial one.

but it isn't, really. this is one of those questions that's a good illustration of the point that you often have to inject a little bit of common sense into the mix.

A)
...
I see this as a strong contender, may be TVs are so expensive that people prefer to watch at house parties rather than buying it.

this is one of those things that you just have to reject with your everyday intuition.
i.e., "hey, my friend has these weekend parties, where lots of people watch his big-screen TV" doesn't translate into "i don't need my own tv anymore!"
... because, well, it just doesn't.
i don't really have a better explanation, other than that it's basically supposed to be common sense. (e.g., what if you want to watch the 11 o'clock news, or a random basketball game on a wednesday night? are you out of luck unless there happens to be a big house party that night?)

C)This was accepted because, people are purchasing new devices such as video-enabled personal digital assistants and music players more increasingly. Where did it say that people will not buy Tvs for that reason??

answer choice (c) says that the alternative devices are being purchased "for use as a primary source of information and entertainment". in other words, something that displaces whatever is currently the "primary source" -- in all likelihood, the TV.
this is about as explicit as they can get, without actually spelling it out for you. by saying "primary source" they are basically 90% of the way to saying that the new devices are going to take over the role formerly played by TV.

[JbhB682]

A is one of those things that you just have to reject with your everyday intuition.
i.e., "hey, my friend has these weekend parties, where lots of people watch his big-screen TV" doesn't translate into "i don't need my own tv anymore!"
... because, well, it just doesn't.
I don't really have a better explanation, other than that it's basically supposed to be common sense. (e.g., what if you want to watch the 11 o'clock news, or a random basketball game on a Wednesday night? are you out of luck unless there happens to be a big house party that night?)


.

Hi Experts - I also chose A unfortunately and the reason is exactly the scenario Ron mentioned in the blue font specifically

I assumed
Well if people are gathering together to watch TV (albeit popular shows only) and this is a growing trend -- It's quite possible that some people (even if that number is few people, say 5 or 10 people) will stop buying a TV and contend with watching TV in large gathering's.

Thus the OVERALL number of TV's will reduce (How much we don't know but it could lead to a reduction in the number of TV sets bought

Seems like I need to use "common sense" to not make such leap of faiths

[my friend has these weekend parties, where lots of people watch his big-screen TV" doesn't translate into "i don't need my own tv anymore]

hmmm, any suggestions on how to STOP making these leap of faiths ?

Is it just practice ?

[esledge]

I assumed
Well if people are gathering together to watch TV (albeit popular shows only) and this is a growing trend -- It's quite possible that some people (even if that number is few people, say 5 or 10 people) will stop buying a TV and contend with watching TV in large gathering's.

Thus the OVERALL number of TV's will reduce (How much we don't know but it could lead to a reduction in the number of TV sets bought

I bolded some of your words above--if you have to assume things, tell a story about "if X happens, then Y could happen," or speculate at all, you are talking yourself into a wrong answer. Don't do story-telling! (Strengthen and Weaken questions are where I catch myself doing it.)