From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 11 Dec 2016, 05:11

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [1] , given: 70

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 13:07
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (02:46) correct 62% (01:36) wrong based on 261 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

What is the logical flaw presented in the argument?

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

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.

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

It overlooks the possibility that strong peasants were often targeted and killed by the local aristocracy for fear that they might lead a peasant uprising.

The argument takes for granted that smart peasants knew how to make themselves appear weak when the army recruiters came through town.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Archit143 on 15 Dec 2012, 03:44, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [0], given: 70

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 13:09
The source of the question is Grockit and the answer will follow very soon...Pls present your thoughts with clear reasoning.
It will be appreciated if someone mentions why an option which he terms is out of scope.
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [0], given: 70

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 13:42
I feel that Assumption which is accepted on GMAT for these questions is that these weaker peasents know how to pretend to be weak. There may be few stronger peasents also who pretend to be weak because they do not want to join army and get subjected to harsh life and have short life span.

Hence I think E is a strong contender but it cannot be denied that A is also appealing...
Can some one explain what should be our step for finding a logical flaw question.
Here is what i think:-
Find a reasoning error that is it and compare it with the options.

So reasoning error here is not to join army because the commanders subject to harsh life and hence may shorten the life span. Flaw here is These pretending weaker peasants may die of some road accident, malnutrition, cardiac instances for instances. So why only blame Army<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

The same line of reason is presented in A, Hence it is also strong contender..

Do not know which one to select ...pls help A, E or the OA (B)
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 174

Kudos [?]: 1303 [1] , given: 62

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2012, 22:01
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The conclusion is: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak

In the logical flaw type questions, we must remember one thing:
Any answer choice that describes information or a situation that does not occur in the stimulus is incorrect.
Nowhere we are told anything about "smart peasants". So we can't speculate anything about them. Hence E is wrong here.

A makes a necessary condition into a sufficient one, exaggerating a lot. We can't be so sure that it was the only reason.

B chooses the middle path, mentions the peasants with intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits better than others.
It presents an objection to the conclusion that without considering these peasants, how can one say that it was the best for peasants to remain weak.

hope that helps
_________________
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [0], given: 70

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 04:15
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.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [0], given: 70

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 04:36
As per Powersccore CR bible, New elements are not considered correct answers in such questions.
Inttermediate strength is toally new and we do not know that even these people are enlisted in the army. Than how can they be convinced.

but yes to extent it is better than logic of Smart peasents but A i still think is the best answer choice.
Intern
Status: Winning is not everything, but wanting to win is
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 35
WE 1: IT Consultant (6Yr)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 5

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 04:39
Archit143 wrote:
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.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.

Hi Archit

When i read the question and the answer choices i felt the three contenders could be A,B & E here but i eliminated B & E on the basis that nothing regarding the intermediate peasent and smart peasant is made in the argument and would be more of a bringing outside knowledge to the scope of the answers.

Hence i feel strongly about A with the reasons mentioned by you.

Thanks
Jatin
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 174

Kudos [?]: 1303 [0], given: 62

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 04:41
Archit143 wrote:
As per Powersccore CR bible, New elements are not considered correct answers in such questions.
Inttermediate strength is toally new and we do not know that even these people are enlisted in the army. Than how can they be convinced.

but yes to extent it is better than logic of Smart peasents but A i still think is the best answer choice.

Yes peasants with intermediate strength is new information, but the idea of the strength is not new; it has been discussed in the stimulus.
A is a strong contender but it loses the battle in that it exaggerates.
_________________
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [0], given: 70

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 04:47
Hi Marcab

The use of word "Only" can be a justification for the option to be trmed as exaggerated but its clearly mentioned in the book that. Option cannot be eliminate solely on its wordings.
The idea needs to checked...Which i thnk is completely justified. If you negate the assumption which it is stating than the option conclusion is destroyed.

A or B????????????????
VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 519 [0], given: 70

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 04:48
jsahni123 wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
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.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.

Hi Archit

When i read the question and the answer choices i felt the three contenders could be A,B & E here but i eliminated B & E on the basis that nothing regarding the intermediate peasent and smart peasant is made in the argument and would be more of a bringing outside knowledge to the scope of the answers.

Hence i feel strongly about A with the reasons mentioned by you.

Thanks
Jatin

I second your thought and that is what i am contending.....
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 174

Kudos [?]: 1303 [0], given: 62

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:14
Okay.
On negation, A becomes: "The fact that they were not enlisted into the army was not the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer".
The conclusion is:"it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak".
Does it really destroys the argument? Not really. What if the other ways were better, then in such case it won't destroy BUT if the other ways were not better, then in such case it will destroy".
_________________
Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Posts: 12
Followers: 0

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

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 12:31
Also chose A but got wrong. What if being week reduces ones lifespan and long term surviving skills thus rendering short? So simply by not going to army and remaining weak doesnt necessarily guarantee long survival
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10444
Followers: 887

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 0

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2014, 00:47
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.
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Posts: 92
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 17

Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2014, 05:48
Archit143 wrote:
jsahni123 wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
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.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.

Hi Archit

When i read the question and the answer choices i felt the three contenders could be A,B & E here but i eliminated B & E on the basis that nothing regarding the intermediate peasent and smart peasant is made in the argument and would be more of a bringing outside knowledge to the scope of the answers.

Hence i feel strongly about A with the reasons mentioned by you.

Thanks
Jatin

I second your thought and that is what i am contending.....

Frankly speaking, none of the options make sense and i feel it's not even a valid GMAT question;
As for options A and E, neither does the argument take anything "for granted", nor does it assume like not getting enlisted in the army is the only chances of survival.
Remaining B, C, and D; B introduces an additional element about peasants with intermediate strength and their comparison with strong and weak peasants that in no ways can be a correct answer.
C is a weakener, had C been true peasants of all stature would have been sent to the army
D too is irrelevant .

Carcass, your thoughts on this would be awesome.
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for   [#permalink] 10 Sep 2014, 05:48
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 It has been suggested that long-term prisoners, on release from jail 10 01 Feb 2015, 06:15
1 Bacteria from food can survive for several days on the surface of plas 2 22 Nov 2014, 05:32
8 From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for 9 27 Dec 2010, 19:08
Advertisement: The world s best coffee beans come from 7 25 Jan 2008, 10:16
Advertisement: The world s best coffee beans come from 2 09 Jul 2007, 20:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by