|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 560
Location: Aus
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very [#permalink]
 18 Aug 2004, 09:55
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
22. All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.
Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above?
(A) I must be stupid because all intelligent people are nearsighted and I have perfect eyesight.
(B) All chickens have beaks. This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken.
(C) All pigs have four legs, but this spider has eight legs. So this spider must be twice as big as any pig.
(D) John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall because all tall people are happy.
(E) All geniuses are very nearsighted. I must be very nearsighted since I am a genius.
Please explain. How to get high accuracy in these parallel structure problems ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 0
|
Tough one, I must say. My metod is to look closely at the stimulus.
It mentions:
all intelligent people are nearsighted
I am very near sighted
So I must be a genius
What is is doing here is 'equating' intelligent people = nearsighted, so the extremely intellligent people (geniuses) = very nearsighted
Now let's go and find something similar in the choices.
(A) Intelligent people = Nearsighted
I must be stupid = perfect eyesight
Might not be good enough, stupid can be farsighted as well.
(B) Chicken = Beaks
Bird has a beak, so bird must be a chicken
No comparison of extremes here. So reject this.
(C) Pigs = 4 legs
Spider = 8 legs
So spider must be bigger. Again, no comparison of extremes.
(D) Tall people = Happy
John = Extremely happy because he is extremely tall
This choice gives us the comparison of extremes exhibited in the stimulus
(E) Geniuses = Very nearsighted
I = genius because I am very nearsighted.
Also no comparison, basically uses the logic given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 929
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
agree with D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 296
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
The flaw is incorrectly reversing the implication, and then applying extremes to the reversal.
A -> B becomes very B -> very A.
Tall -> Happy
John extremely happy so John is extremely tall follows the same flaw.
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 560
Location: Aus
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Great explanation.
D is the official answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
