Q22 - The trustees of the Avonbridge

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I am confused about B. I read an explanation on the Internet that all the candidates are subjected to "inaccurate" tests, and that's what the goal of the audition is. However, the goal of the audition is to select the top 10% from each of the individual categories i.e. local and non-local user. HEnce, if the the results of the tests are inconclusive, how can we say that the plan will achieve its goal?

For instance, the goal of the LSAT is to identify candidates who have a great potential to be an excellent lawyers. What if the test results are inconclusive, essentially even a 5th grader (not that they cannot, but let's assume that they can't score well on the Lsat) will clear the test. Isn't the goal of the exam weakened?

Essentially, I am attacking the accuracy of the tests.

I am curious.

Thanks

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I acknowledge that there was a typo in my initial post. The goal of the trustee is to award scholarship to "highly evaluated auditions". We need to attack the link between "top 10% local/non-local" and "highly evaluated auditions".

I am good so far.

My question is that should I assume that B is true? Essentially, many times the questions say that "which of the following, if true, weakens the argument" => in such cases, I believe that we are not supposed to question the answer choices and take them for granted as a FACT.

However, in this particular question: I notice two things:

1) there is no "if true" in the question.
2) From your discussion about B), it seems that 2) is untrue. Essentially, if the author is saying that "I am using the audition to find, say, the best candidates then we have to trust him. However, B seems to go against what the author's intention are. B) tells me that the test that the author is going to use to evaluate the candidate wouldn't let him choose the best candidates. I believe that that's where the confusion is. I took B) for granted and attacked author's argument -- in other words, on one hand the author says that I am going to use the LSAT to evaluate the best candidates, on the other hand 'B) guy' says that the LSAT test is flawed because it's results are inaccurate. Can you please fill the gap? Am I on the right track?


Thanks
Voodoo

[tzyc]

I have a question about (A)...
Is it wrong because they do not have to be the "best"?
I first thought "the most highly evaluated" means equal with "the applicants with the most highly evaluated auditions", but the two things do not necessarily mean the same thing so it cannot be the correct answer...is that correct?

Thank you

[damnsky]

My question is that should I assume that B is true? Essentially, many times the questions say that "which of the following, if true, weakens the argument" => in such cases, I believe that we are not supposed to question the answer choices and take them for granted as a FACT.

This is not a weaken question, this is a flaw question, which we are simply asked to point out a flaw in the argument. In my opinion, the difference between a weaken and a flaw question is (as you already pointed out): in a flaw question, we take nothing for granted, and the correct choice will point out a flaw in the reasoning; in a weaken question, we take the choices for granted (the question always says something like "which of the following, if true, weakens...") and the correct choice will weaken the argument.

I have a question about (A)...
Is it wrong because they do not have to be the "best"?
I first thought "the most highly evaluated" means equal with "the applicants with the most highly evaluated auditions", but the two things do not necessarily mean the same thing so it cannot be the correct answer...is that correct?

In my opinion, (A) misses the target. The goal of the trustees' plan is to offer scholarships to the best applicants. Whether the best applicants will apply for somewhere else and then not actually enroll (accept scholarships) is not of trustees' concern.

[soyeonjeon]

Can any of the instructors please explain this one? I'm lost. Is this a useful/adequate question in prepping for the recent-style exams?

Thanks.

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

So, I want to make clear that this is a very straightforward, realistic, and (in my opinion) simple Flaw question. The reason why there's so much confusion is that nobody is using the correct methodology. The method for dealing with assumption family questions is to begin by focusing on the core (premise/assumption).

Premise: We will offer scholarships to best 10% of local applicants and best 10% of nonlocal applicants.

Conclusion: We will offer scholarships to only the best evaluated auditions.

Predicted Assumption: Now, I don't know about you, but I can see the problem with this argument right away. The best local applicants may be significantly worse than even the WORST nonlocal applicants. If that were true, then we would be offering scholarships to people without the best evaluated auditions (i.e. all the best people might be in the nonlocal category).

(A) Enrollment is irrelevant. We only care about who we're offering scholarships to.

(B) The issue is whether we offer scholarships to the best evaluated people, not whether those evaluations are actually accurate. (Also, audition materials are irrelevant--I don't even know what that would mean). This doesn't say we're going to give scholarships to the best people, but the people with the most highly evaluated auditions.

(C) This brings up what people need, but we don't care about that.

(D) CORRECT. This is exactly what we predicted.

(E) This starts out good, but the problem isn't that nonlocal applicants are favored. The favored group is whichever one is smaller (which is more likely to be the local group anyway).

[dragonliwenxu]

I picked B but finally realized why B is incorrect.

For B, even if there is inaccurate assessment, the interviewer can still sort out "highly evaluated auditions".

The word "evaluated" refers to a subjective attitude, regardless of what is objectively good or bad.

As long as the interviewers think that they have succeeded, the plan works.