General availability of high-quality electronic scanners -

[anoo.anand]

The general availability of high-quality electronic scanners and color printers for computers has made the counterfeiting of checks much easier. In order to deter such counterfeiting, several banks plan to issue to their corporate customers checks that contain dots too small to be accurately duplicated by any electronic scanner currently available; when such checks are scanned and printed, the dots seem to blend together in such a way that the word "VOID" appears on the check

A questionable assumption of the plan is that

A. in the territory served by the banks the proportion of counterfeit checks that are made using electronic scanners has remained approximately constant over the past few years
B. most counterfeiters who use electronic scanners counterfeit checks only for relatively large amounts of money
C. the smallest dots on the proposed checks cannot be distinguished visually except under strong magnification
D. most corporations served by these banks will not have to pay more for the new checks than for traditional checks
E. the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accurately will not decrease significantly in the near future.


what is the problem with C ??

[amitganguly2k12]

My pick is E.
After POE C &E remains
USE Negation process : intention is the negated statement should weaken the argument.
C : the smallest dots on the proposed checks can be distinguished visually except under strong magnification - that doesn't clearly indicate that duplication will be done by those involved in this business.Its more of a generalization.

E : the size of the smallest dots that generally available electronic scanners are able to reproduce accurately will decrease significantly in the near future. - Clearly indicates people involved in this business will benefit.Hence weakens the argument.

Thanks.

[rbibhu]

In the question stem, we are talking about scanner. It has been clearly mentioned that current scanners don't have capabilities. If it could have been magnified, scanners could capture the dots. Hence C is ruled out.

[RonPurewal]

yeah, this is definitely (e): the argument assumes that scanners aren't going to get any better.

(c) is irrelevant, since it deals with what can be detected by the human eye (this is what "visually" means). the passage deals only with what can be detected by scanners, not by human eyes.

[pradeepchandy]

I chose C because

Lets say check has VOID written on it - then unless I can confirm whether its made of small dots or if its a single contiguous word, I cannot say whether its counterfeit

If I cannot see that its made of dots, I have no way of checking whether its counterfeit


So the new check can be replicated by counterfeiters to show VOID without catching the eyes of users

Plan will fail

[RonPurewal]

I chose C because

Lets say check has VOID written on it - then unless I can confirm whether its made of small dots or if its a single contiguous word, I cannot say whether its counterfeit

If I cannot see that its made of dots, I have no way of checking whether its counterfeit


So the new check can be replicated by counterfeiters to show VOID without catching the eyes of users

Plan will fail

three things wrong with what you're doing here.

1) this argument has nothing to do with visual inspection of the checks -- i.e., at no point does a human being have to look at the checks (even under magnification) and actually discern the presence of the dots.
the facts stated in the argument say that, if an electronic scanner is not good enough to discern the dots, then the image printed by the scanner will blend the dots together into the word "void". all of this is done automatically and mechanically by the electronic device itself; human vision is absolutely irrelevant to the process.

2) you're also misreading the passage in another way -- you're assuming that the dots, even when they're not connected (i.e., on the genuine check), say "void".
they don't -- the dots only say "void" when they're reproduced by a scanner that's not good enough. on the original check, the dots don't say anything at all.
go back and check the passage again -- you'll find that these statements are what's actually there, and that your initial impression was mistaken.

3) it also appears that you're also misreading the statement -- i.e., you're reading choice (c) as though its opposite is "humans can't distinguish the dots at all".
the statement says "people can't detect the dots EXCEPT when they're magnified" -- i.e., people cannot detect the dots IF they are NOT magnified.
the opposite of this statement = people still can detect the dots, even IF they are NOT magnified.
so you're arguing against the wrong assumption.

(this is a general principle, by the way: the negation of "If X, then Y" is "Y can be false when X is true.")

--

to the poster:
in your specific case, it seems worthwhile to linger over passages a little longer, being sure to NOTICE FACTS AND SPECIFICS that are in the passage. (note: this doesn't apply to RC passages; just CR.)
you seriously misread at least two key facts in the passage (see #1 and #2 above), an observation that suggests that generally slowing down and paying more attention to what's written there, very carefully, will help you.

[rrampriya]

Ron,

I was thinking on B. Because they mention that the banks issue such checks only to their corporate customers, it assumes that counterfeit happens only for relatively large amounts of money!

Is it a wrong assumption?

Thanks!

[keanuxie]

I will go with B too.
The banks want to tackle the existing conterfeiting issue now. Whether counterfeiters can evolve a better technology in the future is an irrelevant factor.
The plan is based on the assumption that the counterfeiters are focusing on counterfeiting corporate customers checks. What if the counterfeiters mostly counterfeit individual checks, leading to the majority of the banks' loss?

[RonPurewal]

@ the last two posters:

hmm?

it should be pretty easy to eliminate (b), since there is absolutely nothing in the passage that has anything to do with the amount of the check.

(and no, there's no connection between "corporate check" and "large amount" -- companies write checks for both large and small amounts, all the time.)

[gmat.acer]

Question asks "which one of the following is a questionable ASSUMPTION."

Can we reject (C) because it does not seem like an assumption?

I was also deciding between (C) & (E) and rejected (C) because it does not seem to be an assumption of the argument; it seems more as a fact. Whereas (E) is an assumption this argument can make.

[RonPurewal]

Can we reject (C) because it does not seem like an assumption?

hmmm

well, you probably know that you're treading on dangerous ground here.
if you have to guess, then by all means start following hunches like this one -- but following any sort of vague notion is generally not such a great idea unless you find yourself in a guessing situation.

in any case, i am loath to recommend any sort of method based on vague intuition to the denizens of this board, because it's unlikely that any two posters will share the same vague intuition.
you can test it out for yourself, however, by doing this:
* go through all of the assumption questions in the official guide
* don't actually read the passages or really pay attention to the questions themselves
* just go through and eliminate the choices that you think "don't sound like assumptions"
* see how you do with this method -- if ALL of your eliminations are actually wrong answers, then carry on. if not, then throw this particular guessing method in the trash.

in general, most assumptions will look like facts; the only difference is that they are facts that are required by the argument but are not yet articulated as definitely true.

there are a few distinguishable patterns among assumptions -- most notably, the fact that negative statements (not/can't/etc.) are correct assumptions more often than are positive statements -- but i'm skeptical of the possibility of eliminating choices because they look too "facty".

[karanrob]

Guys, Iam new to the forum and after reading the entire page, I quite did not reach any answer. To my head, this is how the passage descends from (IDIOMATIC) ;-):

This is a plan question. Several banks "PLAN" to implement new cheques with dots on them not readily identifiable by the naked eye, however, on scanned printed versions of the same cheque, the dots align to display an image "VOID" . Now, ideally I would start with trying to negate the plan, i.e see if these cheques in the first will be accepted by everyone or not.

Choice D - Offers that oppurtunity, it says cheques are more expensive than regular's. If nobody uses these cheques, then the whole argument falls apart. Where is the question of scanning, or printing or whatever. MODS pls Correct if my thinking pattern is wrong!!

[RonPurewal]

Guys, Iam new to the forum and after reading the entire page, I quite did not reach any answer. To my head, this is how the passage descends from (IDIOMATIC) ;-):

i don't know what you are trying to say here. what do you mean by "idiomatic" here?

Choice D - Offers that oppurtunity, it says cheques are more expensive than regular's. If nobody uses these cheques, then the whole argument falls apart. Where is the question of scanning, or printing or whatever. MODS pls Correct if my thinking pattern is wrong!!

the passage assumes nothing at all about the cost of the checks. they might cost more; then again, they might not.

you are looking for something that is actually assumed by the argument and is problematic.

by the way, this is one of a few questions on which i think it's reasonable to predict the answer yourself.
that isn't always possible -- but, here, it is. when i read this argument, i immediately thought, "hey, what if the printers get better?"
this thought was especially strong because the argument referred specifically to scanners that are "currently available" -- thus prompting the inevitable thought that the plan could be defeated by future scanners that are better.

[thanghnvn]

experts, member, pls, comment on my folowing work order.
- for plan question which I considered similar to causal argument.
find conclusion: will deter counterfeiting
evidence: use small dot check
- prephrasing assumption: no other cause, there is no scanner which can immitate small size dot(this can be brainstormed before going to answer choice. I do not make this after seeing OA)
- prephrasing the weakener: there is a scanner which destroy the plan
- look for another cause which make the process: E match most closely.

I see prephrasing is effective for the assumption based answer. We need to be armed with a prephrased thing before looking at answer choices which can be a trap. Of course, prephased thing can not be most precise but can give us something we should look for among answer choices.

[RonPurewal]

experts, member, pls, comment on my folowing work order.
- for plan question which I considered similar to causal argument.
find conclusion: will deter counterfeiting
evidence: use small dot check
- prephrasing assumption: no other cause, there is no scanner which can immitate small size dot(this can be brainstormed before going to answer choice. I do not make this after seeing OA)
- prephrasing the weakener: there is a scanner which destroy the plan
- look for another cause which make the process: E match most closely.

I see prephrasing is effective for the assumption based answer. We need to be armed with a prephrased thing before looking at answer choices which can be a trap. Of course, prephased thing can not be most precise but can give us something we should look for among answer choices.

thanghnvn, i'm sorry, but i'm not sure what you are actually trying to ask here.
please ask a more explicit question, thanks.