Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the

The negative correlation apparently cannot be stated as correlation etc in E but to my logical mind it seems the right bucket for this reasoning? thanks to the primary explanation though i can get to see A

Dear docdrizzeally

Per my understanding, E is wrong because it's half right, half wrong.

Half right: E may be half correct by stating about the usage of evidence of a correlation. The fact Siegfried said is a correlation [my father's standard of living ==> my own standard of living]

Half wrong: E is also half wrong, because Brunhilda did not talk about any causal relationship. Note that the causal relationship form is: A & B both exist ==> A causes B. However, Brunhilda's conclusion is just a prediction(X cannot be better than Y) without any explanation of relationship between X and Y ==> That's not the form of "causal relationship".

Hence, E is not correct.

Regards.

Hello pqhai,

thank you for the explanation, but I still think that C is the right choice while I do not think that A is the right choice.

Why I see C correct is because B talks about confidence (or probability) and S talks about actual case.
I'll try to provide Analogous example, not sure if it is good although:
B: Today's Real-Barcelona match is the first one to not have a true favorite.
S: That is not true. Those teams played 10 times this year and Barcelona won 7 games.

However, now I reread the answer C which says "example that is not INconsistent". I read it first as "not consistent". So if "inconsistent" is not misspelled, then C is wrong.

Then A is probably the right answer, but I do not see any specific appeal to authority. Probably, that's an Idiom that I am not aware of
I will google it.

Hi happyinlove505

"Appeal to authority" is a LSAT term rather than GMAT's.
I found a topic about "logical fallacies" for you. I bet you can learn a lot form that topic. Please see link below:
a-logical-fallacy-is-an-error-of-reasoning-it-either-has-40345.html

Best.

Very though!

Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Seems the correct one, although I am not quite sure. Does "authority" refer to Siegfried's parents? Then that's the one. A bit tricky for non-natives.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
No. Siegfried is relying on experienced values from his parents. So he does not assume anything but the future trend.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
Clearly out.

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
Looks also tempting, but Siegfried does rely on past events.

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
The reasoning of Siegfried includes no correlation. It is just a reasoning based on past data. So that's why this one is out.

Opinions?

Even I am also with (A) this seems the most promising.

Powerscore GMAT CR Bible States appeal to authority as -

An Appeal to Authority uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader. The flaw in this form of reasoning is that the authority may not have relevant knowledge or all the information regarding a situation, or there may a difference of opinion among experts as to what is true in the case.

In this case Brunhilda talks about future generations , however Siegfried talks about comparison of standard of living of people with that of his earlier generation, ( might be the situation is different)

In my opinion Siegfried could not provide a convincing arguement to challenge Brunhilda's arguement.

This is indeed a great question!!

Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?

We can easily detect that the two statements are contrasting or opposite to each other.

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove. (Opposite)

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
(Siegfried did not say anything reg future events. He retrospected past events.)

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
(No causal relationship exists here. OFS)

Between options A and C, I selected C as I could not understand option A.

great hint from Abhishek as I understood why A is correct...........kudos to you Abhishek009


Coming to option C, I realized it is well laid trap for people like me and uses a Double negative.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

not inconsistent means consistent as two negative words cancel out each other.

i.e., It offers an example that is consistent with Brunhilda's argument. (Opposite. same as B)

refer below link to learn more about Double negatives.
double-negatives-206717.html?hilit=double

I found some good explanation:

Here Brunhilda generalizes that her generation will be the first that will not enjoy a better standard of living than their parents. Siegfried disagrees and points out that he lives better than his parents do and his parents do not live as well as their parents did before them. To him, his own personal experience disproves Brunhilda's argument. (A) describes an error that Siegfried has made. He sites his own limited experience as if it were conclusive proof that Brunhilda is wrong. He is the authority on his family's situation, but it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion he did based upon one individual scenario. (B) is incorrect because he is not simply assuming a position to be true without offering any evidence. He offers evidence to prove his point. It is just not comprehensive. (C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. (D) is incorrect because Siegfried's argument is based upon current and past realities (his standard of living, his parents', and his grandparents'), not upon "unproven speculation about future events." (E) is wrong because Siegfried does not argue a causal relationship at all. He does not attempt to explain what causes the difference in standard of living between him and his parents. He just uses that standard of living difference as an example to dispute Brunhilda.

Interesting question. What A means is that it is not correct to draw a conclusion from limited knowledge. In my view C says that Siegfried offering a specific case does not disprove the generalization. That is more or less the same as A, which is Siegfried is using limited knowledge for his conclusion.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.