The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet. The...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet. The only cyclists seriously interested in innovation and willing to pay for it are bicycle racers. Therefore, innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purposes of competition in bicycle races.

Which of following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.

High-performance bicycles are likely to be improved more as a result of technological innovations developed in small workshops than as a result of technological innovations developed in major manufacturing concerns.

Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.

The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.

The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The technological conservatism of bicycle manufacturers is a reflection of the kinds of demand they are trying to meet.	What it says: Bike manufacturers are conservative with technology because they're responding to what customers want What it does: Sets up the main idea that customer demand drives manufacturer behavior What it is: Author's claim about manufacturer motivation
The only cyclists seriously interested in innovation and willing to pay for it are bicycle racers.	What it says: Only bike racers actually want and will pay for new technology What it does: Explains the specific type of demand mentioned earlier - narrows down who actually wants innovation What it is: Author's claim about customer segments Visualization: \(\mathrm{Total\ cyclists} = 1000\), but only racers (maybe \(50-100\)) want innovation
Therefore, innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what authorities will accept as standard for purposes of competition in bicycle races.	What it says: Racing authorities control bike innovation by deciding what's allowed in competitions What it does: Draws the main conclusion by connecting the previous facts - since racers are the only market, their competition rules become the limiting factor What it is: Author's main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument moves from a general observation about manufacturers responding to demand, narrows down to identify racers as the only relevant customer group, then concludes that racing authorities effectively control innovation

Main Conclusion:

Innovation in bicycle technology is limited by what racing authorities will accept as competition standards

Logical Structure:

The logic chain works like this: manufacturers follow customer demand → only racers want innovation → therefore racing rules control innovation. The argument assumes that since racers are the only paying customers for innovation, whatever limits them (racing authorities) limits the entire industry

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what must be true for the conclusion to logically follow from the premises

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about cyclist segments (only racers want innovation), manufacturer behavior (they respond to demand), and limiting factors (racing authorities control standards)

Strategy

Look for gaps between the premises and conclusion. The argument jumps from 'only racers want innovation' to 'racing authorities limit innovation.' We need to find what bridges this gap - essentially what must be true about how racing authorities' decisions affect the innovation that racers want

Answer Choices Explained

The market for cheap, traditional bicycle cannot expand unless the market for high-performance competition bicycles expands.

This discusses the relationship between cheap traditional bicycle markets and high-performance bicycle markets. However, our argument is specifically about innovation being limited by racing authorities, not about market expansion relationships between different bicycle segments. This choice introduces concepts not present in our argument and doesn't address the gap between racer demand and racing authority control that we need to bridge.

This compares innovation sources (small workshops vs. major manufacturers) for high-performance bicycles. Our argument doesn't discuss who develops the innovations or where they come from - it's focused on what limits innovation overall. The argument is about demand and regulatory constraints, not about the source of technological development. This choice is irrelevant to our logical gap.

Bicycle racers do not generate a strong demand for innovations that fall outside what is officially recognized as standard for purpose of competition.

This states that bicycle racers don't strongly demand innovations outside official competition standards. This is exactly what our argument must assume! Here's why: if racers DID demand lots of innovations beyond what racing authorities allow, then manufacturers would create those innovations to serve their only paying customer base. But our conclusion says racing authorities limit innovation - this only works if racers themselves don't push for innovations outside competition rules. This assumption bridges the critical gap in our argument.

The technology conservatism of bicycle manufacturers results primarily from their desire to manufacturer a product that can be sold without being altered to suit different national markets.

This suggests manufacturers are conservative because they want to avoid altering products for different national markets. This provides an alternative explanation for technological conservatism that contradicts our argument's premise that conservatism reflects the kinds of demand manufacturers are trying to meet (specifically, racer demand). This doesn't support our conclusion about racing authorities being the limiting factor.

The authorities who set standards for high-performance bicycle racing do not keep informed about innovative bicycle design.

This claims racing authorities don't stay informed about innovative designs. If anything, this would weaken our argument rather than support it as an assumption. If authorities aren't informed about innovations, they might set standards that inadvertently limit useful innovations, but this doesn't help explain why innovation is limited by what they accept as standard. Our argument requires that their standards meaningfully constrain innovation, not that they're uninformed.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...