Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 15 Sep 2014, 19:31

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 271
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 9

GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink] New post 27 Dec 2010, 19:08
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

37% (01:50) correct 63% (01:08) wrong based on 63 sessions
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?


A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.


C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

I don't understand why OA is correct

This question is from grockit
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

If you like my post, consider giving me some KUDOS !!!!! Like you I need them

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 95
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [1] , given: 0

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival [#permalink] New post 28 Dec 2010, 00:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
saxenashobhit wrote:
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?


A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.


C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

I don't understand why OA is correct

This question is from grockit


if they dont want to die soon, the peasants had better be weak to live longer.
the assumtion should be " being weak helps the peasants live longer" which is A
i also dont understand why A is correct.
are you sure this is the correct answer choice from the grockit book?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 213
Location: Uzbekistan
Schools: Johnson, Fuqua, Simon, Mendoza
WE 3: 10
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 974

GMAT Tests User
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival [#permalink] New post 17 Jan 2011, 23:08
a flaw in the argument is that not being enlisted into the army is the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer. In the premise there is no proper explanation why it is the only factor thereof and therefore it allows to ssume that there may be alternative reasons for longer live of peasants. Hence, IMO A.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 10

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2011, 21:01
A-autor is making choice on both extremes.If in army,them pople don't live long.
If not in army,the may be great chance of live longer,but if they are not in army (because they are weak) then they are too weak to earn for living.and may be die in poverty.they can't do work because lack in strength.
B- sees the possibility that there must be other guys who are weak enough to not to be in army,but strong enough to make earning. this is correct choice
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 469
Location: Texas
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 20

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2011, 21:34
in the test, i will definately choose A. i still do not understand how is B stronger... its comparing 2 different categories of people... and asking what is flaw here.

in my opinion, introducing 3rd category does not justify the flaw.
Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 1676
Location: India
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 649

Kudos [?]: 2749 [0], given: 879

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink] New post 26 Jul 2012, 10:56
Expert's post
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

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

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink] New post 06 Jul 2013, 08:53
the key to cracking this question is understanding the importance of "best"- it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. for ex. if an argument claims that "A" is the "best" way to crack gmat, then a way to weaken this argument is to contend that "B" is a better way to crack gmat. the same thing is happening here. the question says t hat being weak is the "best" way to survive, and we are negating the argument by stating that "moderate strenghth" is better than being weak.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1062
Location: United States
Followers: 121

Kudos [?]: 1266 [0], given: 119

Premium Member
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink] New post 07 Jul 2013, 00:22
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Quote:
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?


A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.


C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

Frankly, I love this question. B is correct.

This question uses a very classical logic "if-then" + "Logical Opposition"

The form is:
If A, then B
Conclusion: if C, then Not B
Assumption: C is a logical opposition of A



ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Hypothesis: IF strong peasants in Czarist Russia (CR) go into army, THEN they will have shorter life spans.
Conclusion: IF peasants in CR are weak, THEN they will have a longer life span.
Assumption of this argument: "WEAK peasants" is a logical opposition of “STRONG peasants”. Is this correct? Nope, It's totally WRONG.

For example: what is the logical opposition of hot?. Most people say "cold". It's wrong. The correct logical opposition of "hot" is "NOT hot".

** This is the same flaw of this argument. The correct logical opposition of “STRONG peasants” is "NOT STRONG peasants". But the argument says "to live longer, peasants should be WEAK". Must they be weak? No, "Not strong" is enough, for instance "intermediate strong".


ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.
Wrong. A says: “not go into army” helps WEAK peasants live longer. The fact helps ONLY weak people? How about intermediate strong peasants? The main conclusion is: Not go into army will help peasants (in general) live longer. A may be a correct ans if it say: "the only factor helping WEAK peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army"

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.
Correct. B shows one case of the logical opposition of “strong peasants” ==> "Intermediate strong peasants". B states the argument’s flaw. The argument maintains that strong peasants will have shorter life, thus they should be weak to have longer life. That’s incorrect logic. You just need “NOT STRONG peasants” (for example: intermediate strong, little above weak, etc.) You DO NOT need “WEAK”.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.
Wrong. Definitely out of scope. Nothing about “they have same file span”, the argument just compare “strong” vs “weak” ==> That’s incorrect as stated above.


TAKEAWAY:
Logical Opposition of "X" is "NOT X"


Hope you enjoy this question.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 1883
Followers: 259

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink] New post 10 Sep 2014, 21:45
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.
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for   [#permalink] 10 Sep 2014, 21:45
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Experts publish their posts in the topic From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for Archit143 13 13 Dec 2012, 13:07
2 OG 13 Review from An Average Student's Perspective udvranto 3 02 Apr 2012, 09:41
Viewed from any perspective, the performance of this car is SaraiGMAT 0 18 Jun 2010, 08:30
1 European Languages from a Business Perspective scorpioguy 13 07 May 2009, 08:12
How old is too old for MBA from AdCom Perspective patrickpui 1 01 Sep 2006, 13:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.