sales of telephones have increased dramatically over the

[RonPurewal]

I agree on above explanation but question stem stated strongly that M Industries cannot increase sales.

hmm?

read it again -- you are supposed to support the view that MI can't increase sales.
in other words, that is a random hypothesis (NOT something that is already known), and you are supposed to choose evidence that supports it.

[nonameee]

(E) does weaken the assumption of the argument by citing evidence from the previous year. However, in order for (E) to weaken the assumption unconditionally, we have to assume that the trend from the previous year will continue in the current year.

Ron or someone else, can you please clarify this?

Thanks.

[tim]

You are always assuming things in a GMAT CR problem. The thing to keep in mind is that you're looking for the answer that does the best job at weakening the argument, not necessarily the one that makes the argument a mathematical certainty..

[nonameee]

Ok, but what if the trend doesn't hold? What then?

[tim]

the fact that you don't know whether it will or not is enough to weaken the argument.

[nonameee]

The question asks us to prove that the recommended action plan will not work. Answer choice (E) does prove it only if we assume that the trend from the previous year will continue into this year. But what if this trend doesn't continue? In that case, answer choice (E) won't obviously weaken the argument.

Secondly, I agree that this is the best choice, but I need to understand how it is possible that this is the correct choice since we have to assume other things in order for it to be correct.

[nonameee]

I think I got:

Strengthen question types ask you to identify an answer choice that strengthens the argument in some way (from 1% to 100%). So it doesn't necessarily justify the argument (or, as you said, make it a mathematical certainty), nor is it necessarily an assumption of the argument. The correct answer choice will simply help the argument in some way.

The same is true about weakening questions (which is our case). The correct answer doesn't have to destroy the argument. It can just make the author reconsider his position or urge him to respond.

Here we have to weaken the conclusion. With the above in mind, although (E) is not a perfect answer (since it's not clear whether the trend will continue this year), it does the job by casting some doubt on the author's claim.

[gmatwork]

when you do problems, make sure that you're getting TAKEAWAYS from those problems. your takeaways should fit into the following template:

"if i see ______ ON ANOTHER PROBLEM, i should ______"
if you can't fill in this sentence in at least one way for a given problem, keep thinking about that problem until you come up with some way to fill it in. this sort of practice - making generalized conclusions - will benefit you much more than will simply blazing through hundreds of problems willy-nilly with little thought paid to the lessons learned from those problems.[/quote]


Hi Ron,

I can apply the above to learning to quant problems but rather have a hard time doing the same for verbal, especially CR problems. Can you please give me an example of the above for the CR problem in discussion and one for a SC problem.

I have been doing CR from quite a few weeks but can't really seem to connect new problems with similar problems that had done before. At this point I think, I am just solving the reasoning problems and not understanding the underlying pattern for that specific type of reasoning and part of the problem is that I am not doing the above (template as mentioned in your post) for CR.

What kind of learning should we make sure for RC questions?

[RonPurewal]

when you do problems, make sure that you're getting TAKEAWAYS from those problems. your takeaways should fit into the following template:

"if i see ______ ON ANOTHER PROBLEM, i should ______"
if you can't fill in this sentence in at least one way for a given problem, keep thinking about that problem until you come up with some way to fill it in. this sort of practice - making generalized conclusions - will benefit you much more than will simply blazing through hundreds of problems willy-nilly with little thought paid to the lessons learned from those problems.

Hi Ron,

I can apply the above to learning to quant problems but rather have a hard time doing the same for verbal, especially CR problems. Can you please give me an example of the above for the CR problem in discussion and one for a SC problem. [/quote]

one thing you could "learn" from this problem is -- A general trend of "not X" weakens the idea that X will happen.

the reason i put quotes around "learn" is that you should find that all of the CR "lessons" are things that you already know. in other words, you shouldn't have to learn any actual reasoning skills for this test; you already have those, just from being a regular human being in the real world.
the things you'll have to learn are (a) how the questions themselves work and (b) how to think like a regular person and NOT like a "classroom person" who needs "rules".

it wouldn't make any sense for me to post a random SC problem in this thread. if you are looking for takeaways from SC, you can go to our explanations of almost any SC problem in the forum and try to generalize them.

What kind of learning should we make sure for RC questions?

rc is a lot like cr in the sense that you shouldn't actually be learning anything (other than learning how the question types work). mainly, you should concentrate on exactly how the questions work -- which ones require you to grasp main ideas, which ones require you to stay exactly within the boundaries of what's stated, etc.

if you want to discuss these points further, please post them in the appropriate folder; the threads in this folder should stay close to the GMAT PREP problems on which they are originally based.

[davetzulin]

Ron,

The takeway for this problem "general trend of X is weakened by something slightly not X" confused me a bit because although it makes perfect sense it solving the problem, it didn't seem to address the argument i bolded below


Which of the following, if true, provides most support for the view that Mammoth Industries cannot increase its sales of telephones by adopting the plan outlined above?


it appears that we can solve this entire problem without any mention of the "plan". You could say

"Sales overall have went up. M.I. wants more sales.

which if the following if true, provides most support for the view M.I. cannot increase its sales?"

and arrive at the same answer using the same approach. The fact that we used this approach wtihout addressing the plan confused me.

was the whole part of "increasing product while mantaining advertising" a red herring? if so this is a great takeway for me because i was really looking for something that had to do with production, or advertising.

thanks!

[RonPurewal]

dave, yes, it's entirely possible to strengthen an argument in ways that are completely unrelated to the original substance of the argument.

consider:
a friend tells me ...
the nightlife in miami is great these days. you should move back.

here are a number of statements that definitely strengthen this argument, none of which have anything to do with the current line of reasoning (= nightlife):
the job market in your field is strong in miami right now.
housing in miami can be had at bargain prices right now.
the weather in miami is ideal for your asthma.
etc. etc.
i think you'll recognize that all of these are strengtheners -- they clearly help make a stronger case for my friend's conclusion.

by the same token, you can also weaken arguments for reasons that have nothing to do with the original argument. for instance, the opposite of any of the statements above (the job market in your field is terrible, housing is super expensive, you hate heat and humidity) does weaken the argument.

--

the key, of course, is not to think of these as "academic" problems -- instead, just think of them as real-world arguments, and ask yourself whether the person's case is stronger or weaker as a result.

this is precisely why there are so many of these problems on the exam -- they are meant to destroy test takers who approach them like "formal logic" / "academic" problems, and to benefit test takers who come into them with normal, real-world type thinking.

[simon.seiter]

I actually also doubt the question, also out of a pragmatic view. The reason: assuming E, it can be concluded that the sale last year didn't went that well, probably the company even still has stocks not sold(that is what it actually says). Further the price only decreased slightly. What would an economist conduct from that? The price is still too high, especially as the product already seems to have a good marketing. Hence it is likely that the company, who drives the production forward while still sitting on remained stocks, will significantly drop their price in order to boost the sales. Lower prices in a growing market will very likely lead to increased sales. Did you get the last word: sales is the goal, not profit. So this even pushes the theory of a price reduction to gain sales. Their profit might, but probably won't even decline, while sales with lower prices boosts. As it is a fact, that the company will have currently more phones in stock than being abled to sale it is very likely that the price will drop and this very probably will significantly increase sale after basic market theory. As the question asked and underlines that the answer should support that Mammoth CANNOT increase sale, this actually CANNOT be a correct answer. I know it's not your fault, but I wouldn't simply support a solution, because it's official - mistakes happen everywhere.

[tim]

three pieces of advice for you:

1) go back and review the meaning of the word "most", as your explanation seems to assume some absolutes that are not necessary when evaluating which option "provides most support".

2) try to avoid overanalyzing problems the way you have here. that is the surest sign that you're doing something wrong and will probably fall for one of their traps.

3) don't waste any time questioning official answers, as this will ALWAYS be counterproductive.

[aliag916]

Thanks for the takeaway.

So can we say: A general trend of "X increase" weakens the idea that X will not happen. As in d?
Is b wrong coz avg inventory doesn't give info about the trend in sales?
C also weakens as the advertising, which has made MI's telephones well known, will lead to an increase in sales.
Please correct my thinking here.

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for the takeaway.

So can we say: A general trend of "X increase" weakens the idea that X will not happen. As in d?

Don't try to make "rules" for CR; it's impossible. (If you could come up with such rules, you'd have invented artificial intelligence, and you would easily become the richest person on earth.)

Just think about each situation as it's presented, in real-world terms.

Is b wrong coz avg inventory doesn't give info about the trend in sales?

Yes.

C also weakens as the advertising, which has made MI's telephones well known, will lead to an increase in sales.

No. The advertising is already out there, so it won't do anything for upcoming sales.