Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 21:18

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 414 [0], given: 0

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 May 2008, 21:43
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:51) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument

(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar

(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect

(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term fizz

(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions

(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive

_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

If you have any questions
New!
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 1011 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

06 May 2008, 22:43
prasannar wrote:
Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument

(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar

(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect

(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term fizz

(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions

(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive

D
_________________
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 03:57
prasannar wrote:
Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument

(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar

(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect

(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term fizz

(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions

(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive

First I thought that everything is irrelevant, but A. Then I see why A is wrong.
I'll wait for other people explanation.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 04:22

When vinegar and baking soda are mixed, it causes a chemical reaction and fizzes. It is stated that the bottle is labled vinegar and the box is labeled baking soda. When the two are mixed fizzing does not occur. The conlusion is that there is not vinegar in the bottle. But that conclusion fails to exclude any other alternatives, with the most obvious one being that maybe there is vinegar in the bottle but NOT baking soda in the box. If you mixed vinegar and flour you wouldn't get a fizzing reaction.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 04:30
gixxer1000 wrote:

When vinegar and baking soda are mixed, it causes a chemical reaction and fizzes. It is stated that the bottle is labled vinegar and the box is labeled baking soda. When the two are mixed fizzing does not occur. The conlusion is that there is not vinegar in the bottle. But that conclusion fails to exclude any other alternatives, with the most obvious one being that maybe there is vinegar in the bottle but NOT baking soda in the box. If you mixed vinegar and flour you wouldn't get a fizzing reaction.

But it has exculded this alternative. Shouldn't the option be "failed to incude"?
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 05:16
farend wrote:
gixxer1000 wrote:

When vinegar and baking soda are mixed, it causes a chemical reaction and fizzes. It is stated that the bottle is labled vinegar and the box is labeled baking soda. When the two are mixed fizzing does not occur. The conlusion is that there is not vinegar in the bottle. But that conclusion fails to exclude any other alternatives, with the most obvious one being that maybe there is vinegar in the bottle but NOT baking soda in the box. If you mixed vinegar and flour you wouldn't get a fizzing reaction.

But it has exculded this alternative. Shouldn't the option be "failed to incude"?

No, that's where they are trying to confuse you.

Let's say you have two options that could have caused something to happen. We'll call them A and B. If you tell me you know A is the option that caused the thing to happen then you have to exclude option B.

Premise: Either the vinegar bottle or the baking soda box is labeled wrong.

Conclusion: It has to the vinegar bottle.

To make the jump from this premise to this conlusion we have to exclude the baking soda as a possibility.

This will make it clearer:

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 07:34
i also agree with b..its generic enough..
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 200
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 08:12
prasannar wrote:
Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument

(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar

(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect

(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term fizz

(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions

(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive

This is a great question, I am between B & E. I choose B.

E - no mention of deception
D - do we know that it wasn't tested under controlled laboratory conditions?
C - I didn't think that fizz was imprecise
A - it was labeled vinegar, so it was assumed to be as such.
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 555
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 351 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 08:27
Sure B.
SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 20:53
B
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 1011 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 21:26
gixxer1000 wrote:
farend wrote:
gixxer1000 wrote:

When vinegar and baking soda are mixed, it causes a chemical reaction and fizzes. It is stated that the bottle is labled vinegar and the box is labeled baking soda. When the two are mixed fizzing does not occur. The conlusion is that there is not vinegar in the bottle. But that conclusion fails to exclude any other alternatives, with the most obvious one being that maybe there is vinegar in the bottle but NOT baking soda in the box. If you mixed vinegar and flour you wouldn't get a fizzing reaction.

But it has exculded this alternative. Shouldn't the option be "failed to incude"?

No, that's where they are trying to confuse you.

Let's say you have two options that could have caused something to happen. We'll call them A and B. If you tell me you know A is the option that caused the thing to happen then you have to exclude option B.

Premise: Either the vinegar bottle or the baking soda box is labeled wrong.

Conclusion: It has to the vinegar bottle.

To make the jump from this premise to this conlusion we have to exclude the baking soda as a possibility.

This will make it clearer:

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

Hey, you see the green and brown colored boldface. "this bottle" and "this box" is different. So we should not say:
"Premise: Either the vinegar bottle or the baking soda box is labeled wrong."
And that difference leads me to reasons that the content of "this box" is fixed, that is, the author does not care about "this box". This can confirm by "and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box"

Here is my interpretation. The author means that the result of a specific case must follow the general rule that any acidic liquid such as vinegar added to baking soda, the fizzings must occur. But that result does not occur when adding liquid in "the mislabled bottle"-the author claimed- to baking soda. It means that fizzings does not occur.

From this observation, he concluded: the bottle is mislabled.

We say the argument flawed, we say: the bottle is not mislabled with the reason in D.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

07 May 2008, 23:07
gixxer1000 wrote:
farend wrote:
gixxer1000 wrote:

When vinegar and baking soda are mixed, it causes a chemical reaction and fizzes. It is stated that the bottle is labled vinegar and the box is labeled baking soda. When the two are mixed fizzing does not occur. The conlusion is that there is not vinegar in the bottle. But that conclusion fails to exclude any other alternatives, with the most obvious one being that maybe there is vinegar in the bottle but NOT baking soda in the box. If you mixed vinegar and flour you wouldn't get a fizzing reaction.

But it has exculded this alternative. Shouldn't the option be "failed to incude"?

No, that's where they are trying to confuse you.

Let's say you have two options that could have caused something to happen. We'll call them A and B. If you tell me you know A is the option that caused the thing to happen then you have to exclude option B.

Premise: Either the vinegar bottle or the baking soda box is labeled wrong.

Conclusion: It has to the vinegar bottle.

To make the jump from this premise to this conlusion we have to exclude the baking soda as a possibility.

This will make it clearer:

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

Thanks gixxer, I got it. But you know where i was coming from - I thought since the argument didn't talk about/ didn't consider baking soda possibility, that means it has excluded it. My stupid line of thinking - sigh:(
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

08 May 2008, 05:20
farend wrote:

Thanks gixxer, I got it. But you know where i was coming from - I thought since the argument didn't talk about/ didn't consider baking soda possibility, that means it has excluded it. My stupid line of thinking - sigh:(

Right it's like using double negatives so say yes. That's why you have to approach the question knowing they are trying to trick you.

If they said a bottle that might contain vinegar and a box that might contain baking soda were combined and it didn't fiz therefore there must not be vinegar in the bottle it would be two easy. Everyone would say what about the baking soda. It's like when a magician does a trick in one hand and he's doing something sneaky with the other hand. He wants to distract you so you don't see what's going on.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

08 May 2008, 05:26
sondenso wrote:
gixxer1000 wrote:
farend wrote:

No, that's where they are trying to confuse you.

Let's say you have two options that could have caused something to happen. We'll call them A and B. If you tell me you know A is the option that caused the thing to happen then you have to exclude option B.

Premise: Either the vinegar bottle or the baking soda box is labeled wrong.

Conclusion: It has to the vinegar bottle.

To make the jump from this premise to this conlusion we have to exclude the baking soda as a possibility.

This will make it clearer:

Although this bottle is labeled vinegar, no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled baking soda. But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.

Hey, you see the green and brown colored boldface. "this bottle" and "this box" is different. So we should not say:
"Premise: Either the vinegar bottle or the baking soda box is labeled wrong."
And that difference leads me to reasons that the content of "this box" is fixed, that is, the author does not care about "this box". This can confirm by "and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box"

Here is my interpretation. The author means that the result of a specific case must follow the general rule that any acidic liquid such as vinegar added to baking soda, the fizzings must occur. But that result does not occur when adding liquid in "the mislabled bottle"-the author claimed- to baking soda. It means that fizzings does not occur.

From this observation, he concluded: the bottle is mislabled.

We say the argument flawed, we say: the bottle is not mislabled with the reason in D.

I think I may have confused you. I added the statement "and we know for a fact that baking soda was in the box" in one of my responses to show to someone else what you would need to do to exclude the possiblity of the baking soda as an option. The original argument does not have that statement which is exactly why B is the answer. In your response you said the contents of the box can be confirmed by that statement, but without that statement it cannot. Therefore we do not know what is in the box and it is a possiblity that we must exclude if we want to reach the authors conclusion.
Re: CR: Baking soda   [#permalink] 08 May 2008, 05:26
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Naturally occurring vitamins : Weaken 11 11 May 2014, 09:34
CR Although this bottle 8 21 Mar 2008, 04:51
Whenever a major airplane accident occurs, there is a 4 22 Oct 2007, 20:16
CR1000: Red Label Supermarkets 7 02 Sep 2007, 14:25
Whenever a major airplane accident occurs, there is a 4 01 Jul 2007, 01:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by