I do not agree with the answer provided in a CR problem:

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses.... [omitted]

D Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases.
E The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.

D. is the official answer. But firstly it goes against the normal rule of linking all information presented. More importantly, how could one establish the link from not getting vaccinations to the high likelihood of contracting infectious diseases? Not getting vaccination only increases the possibility, I do not think it leads to 'likely to contract'.

E. to me is the more appropriate answer as it is a stated assumption. Without this assumption, the author could not have cited her first reason. Again, I see quite a number of questions in Official Guide and MG that really look for assumptions when they ask for conclusions.

Please clarify.

In conjunction with this problem, could you please clarify this subcategory of Critical Reasoning problems: 'above statement, if true support which of the following'

A lot of the times, I see that this type of question is asking for a conclusion. For example:

All cats have four legs. Cece is a cat.
The above statement if true supports which of the following:
a
b
c
d
e Cece has four legs

Choice e is the best as this is a conclusion that can be established by purely linking the stated evidences. My observation so far with the type of 'support which of the following' problems, sometimes it is also possible that GMAT is asking for an implied premise (assumption made by the statement), instead of a conclusion. For example, another question:

We only love four-legged animals. Cece is a cat. So we absolutely love Cece.
The above statement if true supports which of the following:
a
b
c
d
e Cece has four legs

Choice e is the best, but in this case, this is more of an unstated assumption, less of a conclusion.

Am I right in my judgment of the subtle differences between these two problems that are phrased similarly as in 'support which of the following', and yet ask for either conclusions, or assumptions? Please advise..

To give you more example of what I meant: I can think of two OG questions.

CR #57 that refers to the publishing of a book that has excerpts quoted in widely circulated magazines.

CR #95 that refers to an environmentalist comparing overfishing of marine life to overlogging in amazon forest.

To me both seem to be asking for assumptions/implied premise, more so than a direct conclusion.

For the health savings account MGMAT question, please post the entire argument, as the exact wording is critical to the correct answer.


Generally, this is what a GMAT Draw a Conclusion question requires. It's standard deductive reasoning: a very specific conclusion is draw from more general premises. No assumptions should be made.


In this one, you are still finding the conclusion by deductive reasoning:
We love Cece, and we only love four-legged animals, therefore Cece must have four legs.

No assumptions required.

The "Cece is a cat" premise wasn't really necessary to draw this conclusion. I agree that there is a logic gap between "cat" and "four-legged animals." You have to assume that cats have 4 legs! If the question had asked for an assumption, the correct choice would have explicitly bridged that logic gap, but you should never make assumptions when drawing a conclusion.

_________________
Emily Sledge
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT