Xycorp

[ajaykraju]

Xycorp plans to develop an innovative new video game involving extremely realistic three-dimensional simulations of hand-to-hand combat. The cost of developing and refining the relevant technology, however, is prohibitive for Xycorp, so the company must look to outside sources for funding. The military will only fund the development of technologies that pertain directly to military training or operations, so it is clear that Xycorp will have to look for funding from non-military sources.

Which of the following is assumed in drawing the conclusion above?
A. The market for video games such as Xycorp's proposed product will not expand markedly in the near future.
B. Xycorp's development project will be so costly that only large organizations, such as the military, will be able to provide sufficient funding for it.
C. In originally conceiving the idea for the new video game, the developers at Xycorp were not inspired by actual, historical military operations.
D. The military will not use the new gaming technology to train recruits in hand-to-hand combat.
E. The military does not stay abreast of non-military technological developments such as video games.

Can anybody explain this critical reasoning question?

[ajaykraju]

I am not convinced with the explanation provided in Manhattan CAT exam.

I chose choice C, because when I read the last sentence of the argument, I got an impression that Video game provides environment far from that of military.

In the explanation provided, choice C is excluded saying that "whether the game is based on historical events" is irrelevant. However, argument did not mention historical events, it mentioned historical military operations, implying video game provides environment far from real with respect to military operations.

Moreover, choice D says something about future. How can somebody conclude that Military will not use new gaming technology which is yet to be developed. Premise provided in the argument says that military will only fund the development of technologies that pertain directly to military training or operations. So, Xycorp has to look for other sources. This indicates that new gaming will not be of any use for military training or operation.


See, "new video game will not be of use to military training or operations" is different from "military will not use video game for military training". Choice C suggests former where as choice D suggests latter.

"new video game will not be of use to military training or operations" is an implication/inference

"military will not use video game for military training" is a fact/premise

Look forward to Manhattan's staff response

[RonPurewal]

I chose choice C, because when I read the last sentence of the argument, I got an impression that Video game provides environment far from that of military.

That's exactly the point of the question. You "got an impression" -- but, right now, there's nothing actually in the argument to support that impression. Hence the need for an assumption.

However, argument did not mention historical events, it mentioned historical military operations, implying video game provides environment far from real with respect to military operations.

The argument mentions neither of these things.

"Historical military operations" is just a fancy way of saying "actual wars/battles from history". In other words, this choice is concerned with whether the video game was designed to be, e.g., a mock-up of World War II, or the Civil War, or whatever, rather than fictitious battles that weren't actual historical events.
That doesn't matter. All that matters is whether the video game is relevant to military operations. If it's relevant to military operations -- regardless of whether those might be real battles from history or fictitious/hypothetical ones -- then the argument is in trouble.

[RonPurewal]

Premise provided in the argument says that military will only fund the development of technologies that pertain directly to military training or operations. So, Xycorp has to look for other sources. This indicates that new gaming will not be of any use for military training or operation.

Ironically, you've just given the exact reason why D is the correct answer.

You NEED the idea that "new gaming will not be of any use for military training or operation" (your words). However, the argument doesn't actually SAY that, anywhere.

So you have to assume it.

"military will not use video game for military training" is a fact/premise

It's not a fact. It's not there at all, actually -- so you need to assume it.

[ajaykraju]

Thanks Ron. When I thought to apply "negate the assumption" concept, choice D stood far ahead of choice C. Thank you again for taking time to share your view on this problem.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron. When I thought to apply "negate the assumption" concept, choice D stood far ahead of choice C. Thank you again for taking time to share your view on this problem.

That's a powerful method, because it converts a weird task that people don't often do in real life (= thinking explicitly about assumptions) into a normal task that people do every single day (= trying to prove that someone is wrong). Use it!