CR doubts

[supratim7]

Following is a rehashed OG question

Tom: Creature X is feared and persecuted solely because it is shy animal that is active only at night.
Which of the following, if true, would weaken Tom's conclusion?

(A) Creature Y and Z are shy and active only at night, yet they are not generally feared and persecuted.
(B) People know more about the behavior of other greatly feared creatures, such as P, Q, and R, than they do about the behavior of X.

OA is A. I totally agree with it.

The OG explanation, however, says that choice (B) is a STRENGTHENER. I wonder how so.

Here's why I disagree that (B) is a valid weakener PROVIDED "shy + nocturnal" = "less behavioral knowledge"

Argument: If shy + nocturnal i.e. less behavioral knowledge, then fear + persecution
This can be interpretted as: If more behavioral knowledge, then no fear + persecution

(B) demonstrates if more behavioral knowledge, then ALSO fear + persecution. So, weakens the (re-interpreted) argument.

To me, (B) is incorrect because "shy + nocturnal" ≠ "less behavioral knowledge" or vice versa

Is my reasoning/understanding valid?

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

hey,
if possible, please give the problem # of the OG problem that inspired this. (don't post the text of the problem.)

without seeing the original problem it's hard to tell -- analogies are almost always imperfect -- but here's where i think they are going with choice (b):
choice (b), in essence, indicates that people don't know very much about the animal.
if people don't know very many things about the animal, then, on balance, it's more likely that the animal is feared/persecuted because of the few things that are known about it.

--

MORE IMPORTANTLY

make sure to stay focused on the goal of the problem.

if the goal of the problem is to weaken an argument, then there's absolutely no point at all in trying to distinguish between "strengthener" and "no effect".
as soon as you can determine that something doesn't weaken an argument ... you're done with it.

[supratim7]

Thank you for the prompt reply Ron.

hey,
if possible, please give the problem # of the OG problem that inspired this. (don't post the text of the problem.)

OG12, CR#15, Page#490... choices under consideration would be (D) & (E)

MORE IMPORTANTLY

make sure to stay focused on the goal of the problem.

if the goal of the problem is to weaken an argument, then there's absolutely no point at all in trying to distinguish between "strengthener" and "no effect".
as soon as you can determine that something doesn't weaken an argument ... you're done with it.

Absolutely... while solving I didn't waste anytime on it. However, while I was checking answer explanations, "it strengthens" part stood out and got me thinking...

[RonPurewal]

hey,
i looked at that problem (and the corresponding answer key), and saw no indication of "it strengthens" in the discussion of choice (e). you may want to try reading the OG explanation again.

what i see there is ... according to choice (e), "more knowledge about the characteristics of some animal species may produce more, not less fear."
--> it looks like you've dropped BOTH "some" AND "may", and have (wrongly) interpreted this as a blanket statement about all knowledge of all animal species. nope.

i do agree, though, that the explanation there is a bit wordy (i actually had to read through it quite a few times -- partially because i'm dyslexic and have to read everything a few times, but partially because WHOA. so. many. words.)

here's my condensed explanation of that answer choice:
"sure, there are some species for which greater knowledge = greater fear. but, number 1, there's no reason to believe that [creature X] is one of these, and, number 2, there's no indication that the fears are based on shyness or nocturnal activity. so, that choice is irrelevant."

how's that.

[supratim7]

Thank you for the reply Ron

--> it looks like you've dropped BOTH "some" AND "may", and have (wrongly) interpreted this as a blanket statement about all knowledge of all animal species.

Not really.

OG explanation is "This choice suggests that more knowledge about the characteristics of some animal species may produce more, not less fear. But this is quite compatible with the idea that lack of knowledge about the behavior of bats could explain people’s fearful reaction to them."

It seemed to me that by using "quite compatible" the explanation is alluding that the answer choice is a strengthener.

number 2, there's no indication that the fears are based on shyness or nocturnal activity.

I agree. So, either it weakens the argument a bit (though not as much as the OA does), or it is irrelevant. In any case, this answer choice is not compatible with the argument (that fears are based on shyness or nocturnal activity).

i do agree, though, that the explanation there is a bit wordy (i actually had to read through it quite a few times -- partially because i'm dyslexic and have to read everything a few times, but partially because WHOA. so. many. words.)

Totally agree. Even I am dyslexic; too many lines/texts freaks me out. Read in forums that GMAT doesn't readily acknowledge dyslexia, more so if one had a good GPA so far. That's bit weird because I never had to tackle such complicated texts.. I mean, just look at SC, CR, and RC.. dyslexia nightmare :) Do you have any info on this? Or could you suggest any method/practice that helps? Some advice will be a favor..

Thank you... appreciate your help :)

[RonPurewal]

It seemed to me that by using "quite compatible" the explanation is alluding that the answer choice is a strengthener.

no. that's not what "compatible" means. "is compatible with" just means "doesn't contradict" or "both of these could be true"; absolutely nothing more than that.

for instance, the statement "i was at the gym at midnight" is not compatible with (= contradicts) the statement "i was at the grocery store at midnight".

on the other hand, the statement "i was at the gym at midnight" is perfectly compatible with the statement "i was at the grocery store at 1 a.m."
i.e., it's perfectly possible for both of these to be true. they obviously don't strengthen each other, but that's not what "compatible" means.

[RonPurewal]

Totally agree. Even I am dyslexic; too many lines/texts freaks me out.

well, that's not really what "dyslexic" means. i'm talking about an actual inability to read sentences in a straight line.
(when i look at a paragraph, i first see it as though it were a giant cloud of words. you ever seen those refrigerator magnets with individual words printed on them? that's what every paragraph in the world looks like to my eyes for the first few seconds.)

Do you have any info on this? Or could you suggest any method/practice that helps?

well, perhaps i'm wrong, but it seems that you're taking liberties with what "dyslexia" means.
if you give a more detailed description of the issues you're having, i could possibly give some advice, depending on what the specific situation is.

[supratim7]

Totally agree. Even I am dyslexic; too many lines/texts freaks me out.

well, that's not really what "dyslexic" means. i'm talking about an actual inability to read sentences in a straight line.
(when i look at a paragraph, i first see it as though it were a giant cloud of words. you ever seen those refrigerator magnets with individual words printed on them? that's what every paragraph in the world looks like to my eyes for the first few seconds.)

I see.. No, I don't face similar issue.

Do you have any info on this? Or could you suggest any method/practice that helps?

well, perhaps i'm wrong, but it seems that you're taking liberties with what "dyslexia" means.
if you give a more detailed description of the issues you're having, i could possibly give some advice, depending on what the specific situation is.

Okay.. my issue is that too many lines of complicated text freaks me out; perhaps, to a greater degree than they would freak out an average guy. Bit contrived/complex text but otherwise perfectly understandable tend to go beyond. I end up reading such stuff several times just to unpack them. Needless to say, time pressure aggravates the issue.

This discussion is an example http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/i-bang-my-head-on-this-one-100-times-and-left-with-no-energy-t7607-15.html?sid=a9fb1aef5f8dc163ed6902fd9c3c4432

Do let me know what you think. Appreciate your help :)

[RonPurewal]

The thread in your link pretty much summarizes what I have to say here.

You'd do well to note that the entire point of GMAT RC (and CR, to a lesser extent) is to present passages in which you don't have to "unpack" all the details (your words).

This is actually WHY the passages contain loads of unfamiliar details. The whole point of this test is to determine whether you can figure out THE POINT of something, WITHOUT getting too involved in the details.

It's no coincidence that this is a test for people who want to be in management.
This is how managers have to read highly technical stuff, too -- by not reading it.
If you're a manager at Apple and someone hands you a 60-page technical report about touch-screen components, you're obviously not going to read through the whole report. You'll skim it; you'll think about what it means for production, and for the user experience, and so on; and then you'll put it down.
As for the details, you'll delegate those to your engineering department.
Because that's the whole reason why managers and departments exist in the first place. The former don't get lost in details. The latter do.

[RonPurewal]

Here's another thread (from a different forum) with a specific example of "not getting lost in details", this time in the context of RC.

http://www.beatthegmat.com/developing-v ... tml#690921

[supratim7]

Thank you for the reply Ron.
Appreciate such insights.. extremely fundamental stuff. The test is so much about one's approach to the test itself. Thank you :)

[RonPurewal]

Thank you for the reply Ron.
Appreciate such insights.. extremely fundamental stuff. The test is so much about one's approach to the test itself. Thank you :)

It is 100% about that.
In RC and CR, there is no "knowledge" required at all (other than basic knowledge of how real-world people and things operate). It's entirely about how you think.

This is not an accident. You already have 16-17 years of school grades, which will tell the business schools everything they would ever want to know about how well you absorb information. So, the value of the GMAT is that it doesn't test whether you have absorbed information.

[supratim7]

True.. thank you for the reply Ron :)

[RonPurewal]

Sure.