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.

this is a tough one.
i would go with D, because i dont see any particular inferred effect in the rest of the choices. however it is not clear in D as well... but it looks to be the best choice.

what is the correct answer?
please post the OA, with explanation.

could you post the reasoning please?

IEsailor, what is the source? and please, post OE.
I found completely different answer (A) here
http://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-critica ... nings.html
_________________

Never, never, never give up

IEsailor,pls post the explanation also..........

I got E. I looked at the problem like this:
The flawed logic is that there is one cause and it results in only one effect and nothing else. Since the questions says the stimulus is a flawed logic, it is possible that cause produces other effects also.
In E, the liquid is expected to evaporate, but it can go into other states (say solidify). so there is possibility of other effects than what the option states.
A speaks only of one possibility. It doesn't rule out other possibilities (guess is the key) like the stimulus does.

S_O_S
Some one plz help & take it forward ( i have given my understanding but no ans )

basic cause >> characteristic 1 >> ( effect 1: observed )
basic cause >> characteristic 2 >> ( effect 2 : inferred )

It is illogical to infer a second and different effect (effect 2 : inferred) from a cause which is known only by one particular effect (effect 1: observed).[ cause is known by observed effect 1...author claims that it is illogical to infer effect 2...hence effect 2 cannot happen ]
This is incorrect (means negate above underlined statement.....effect 2 can happen) because the inferred effect (effect 2 : inferred) must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic (characteristic 2) of the cause ( basic cause) than is the observed effect ( effect 1: observed ), which already serves entirely to describe the cause ( means...observed effect 1 already serves entirely to describe the basic cause)

So in short

it is not only effect 1 but effect 2 is also possible from cause, because characteristic 2 exists.

(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.
observed effect 1 : anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society
inferred effect 2 : individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital ( refer I would guess..hence inferred effect)....but no mention of characteristic..
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
observed effect 1 : birth defect because of >> characteristic 1 : The radioactive material leading genetic mutation
inferred effect 2 (refer therefore) : birth defect because of >> characteristic 1 : The radioactive material leading genetic mutation
this is circular reasoning...our reasoning is not circular hence dropped
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
observed effect 1: immense power because of characteristic 1 : tiny atom
inferred effect 2 ( refer...It must be) : 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.
observed effect 1: The city orchestra received more funds
inferred effect 2 (refer ...Clearly) : this administration is more civic-minded

(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.
observed effect 1 : [heat liquid water > it evaporates] & [heat other 100 liquids like water > they also evaporate]
inferred effect 2 (refer...Therefore): I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate

AM i right ? heavy weights plz jump in to help....
_________________

Bhushan S.
If you like my post....Consider it for Kudos