|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: NYC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Chris will have a great future as a lawyer. In high school, [#permalink]
 13 Feb 2005, 15:50
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Chris will have a great future as a lawyer. In high school, he won all the debate competitions he participated in.
Which of the following can be said about the above claim?
A.The veracity of the claim is doubtful because it is based on an incorrect analogy
B.The claim is ambiguous, as there is a shifting in the meaning of the terms
C.The above argument obtains its strength from a similarity of two compared situations
D.The two statements are logically inconsistent with each other
E.The claim is built upon a concealed assumption.
Last edited by Marina on 13 Feb 2005, 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
Wierd question.
I can think of (E)
Underlying assumption could be that
anyone who is good at debates has a great future a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 993
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
(E) is best of the lot.
Rest all goes too beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 246
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Is there a typo in this question? -- Is it 'had a great future' because he was great in debates in highschool?. This seems illogical to me.
So, pick D. Someone can have a great future ahead of themselves, but not sure of 'had a great future'. Although my reasoning here is more like an SC's than a CR's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: NYC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
prep_gmat wrote: Is there a typo in this question? -- Is it 'had a great future' because he was great in debates in highschool?. This seems illogical to me.
So, pick D. Someone can have a great future ahead of themselves, but not sure of 'had a great future'. Although my reasoning here is more like an SC's than a CR's.
Thank you, prep_gmat. Yes, it was a typo and I corrected it, the sentence should be "will have a great future" and not "had a great future" as I posted first. Sorry about any confusions... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 246
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
No Problem Marina. Thanks for promptly editing the q.
Regarding E, aren't all assumptions concealed in GMAT CR parlance?, so i think that makes choice E a bit too generic.
C, to me seems a bit more specific and some what relevant. I know that the connection in the stem is not real 'strong', but whatever the degree of the strength, the claim derives its strength from the similarity between debating and being a lawyer i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2322
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-from Crack-GMAT [#permalink]
13 Feb 2005, 21:31
This one is very strange. E can definitely "be said", I would say. The asumption is that anybody who won all debates the he/she participated in can be a good lawyer.
Now look at the other ones:
A. Veracity of the claim is doubtful, definitely. Is it based on an analogy? From lawyer to debate? Definitely incorrect. I don't know if you'd call it an analogy though?
B. Don't think there is any shifting in meanings for terms, unless he was thinking about debate for a lawyer? 
C. Definitely wrong
D. Can't really say that.
So I'd have to say E, unless it could be A?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 648
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-from Crack-GMAT [#permalink]
14 Feb 2005, 05:29
Marina wrote: Chris will have a great future as a lawyer. In high school, he won all the debate competitions he participated in.
Which of the following can be said about the above claim?
A.The veracity of the claim is doubtful because it is based on an incorrect analogy
B.The claim is ambiguous, as there is a shifting in the meaning of the terms
C.The above argument obtains its strength from a similarity of two compared situations
D.The two statements are logically inconsistent with each other
E.The claim is built upon a concealed assumption. My thoughts: A.The veracity of the claim is doubtful because it is based on an incorrect analogy What if the analogy is correct? (wrong) B.The claim is ambiguous, as there is a shifting in the meaning of the terms Fallacy of Equivocation? we cannot prove that an actual shift exists since we cannot define the actual meanings of each term (lawyer vs good debator) (wrong) C.The above argument obtains its strength from a similarity of two compared situations Are the two situations actually similar? What if they are not? (Wrong). D.The two statements are logically inconsistent with each other We can't prove this. Afterall they may be consistent, but we don't care. (Wrong) E.The claim is built upon a concealed assumption.[/quote]
My first choice, but it's generic!
OA ps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: NYC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
OA is E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: NYC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I did not like this question as well not to mention I answered it wrong (I chose C). I posted it to get your opinion on it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
