|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 7
|
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]
 17 Jun 2009, 23:21
Question Stats:
66% (03:48) correct
33% (01:28) wrong based on 5 sessions
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause. Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage? (A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital. (B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect. (C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power. (D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones. (E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate
_________________
"CEO in making"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 375
Location: India
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 1
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
18 Jun 2009, 13:14
Only A goes on the same line.
rest all related outcome of first to the input of second and thus this forms a chain of events. Only A makes unwarranted assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 853
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
124
[0], given: 106
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
20 Jun 2009, 04:21
IMO E... really tricky/toughy.. It took me too long to evaluate. My Explanation: Error in passage: One cause => one effect and can't be defined by other effects Same error in (E) Heat(cause)=> defined by effect(evaporation) In last the conclusion heat can cause only evaporation(one effect) and nothing else(no other effects) Please correct me if needed!
_________________
Consider kudos for the good post ... 
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1635
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 25
Kudos [?]:
119
[0], given: 2
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
04 May 2010, 15:02
sudeep wrote: IMO E...
really tricky/toughy..
It took me too long to evaluate.
My Explanation:
Error in passage: One cause => one effect and can't be defined by other effects
Same error in (E)
Heat(cause)=> defined by effect(evaporation)
In last the conclusion heat can cause only evaporation(one effect) and nothing else(no other effects)
Please correct me if needed! That is not correct. Any more takers??
_________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 301
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
04 May 2010, 15:23
IMO Only B and E are contenders..
But still not clear with the final answer..!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1570
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
121
[0], given: 6
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
05 May 2010, 09:59
i narrowed it to B and D.
picked (D)
what is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 197
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
30
[0], given: 1
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
05 May 2010, 10:17
I think ans is A
Cause: charitable
Effect: donation
Just because a peron donates in X also means he would donate in Y
assumption that it is CHARITABLE nature that prompts someone to donate and no other characteristic of a person.
However,if the person donates in X for one reason that reason might not apply for Y
and hence such an argument is wrong.
Very similar to the arg in stimulus where it assumes that only one characteristic of
an cause wholly makes up the effect.This assumption is wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2758
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 123
Kudos [?]:
634
[0], given: 221
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
11 May 2010, 17:22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]
12 May 2010, 04:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
IMO B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1322
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 63
Kudos [?]:
311
[1] , given: 52
|
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]
15 Oct 2012, 23:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
IMO A. my take: The line of reasoning in stem is that X causes Y. Therefore X must also cause Z. This is almost similar to the reasoning in A. Hope that helps.
_________________
Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 262
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
22
[2] , given: 42
|
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]
21 Oct 2012, 02:36
2
This post received
KUDOS
IMO B...can any one explain OA?? tenaman10 wrote: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 754
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 19
Kudos [?]:
257
[1] , given: 45
|
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]
21 Oct 2012, 06:12
1
This post received
KUDOS
Cause gives effect. Hence cause can give another effect. a) Good guy gives to charity. Hence good guy must also volunteer. Answer is A
_________________
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from
[#permalink]
21 Oct 2012, 06:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
