Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum
Learn more about the recent changes... close

It is currently 24 May 2013, 10:19
Customize  |  Hide

Search
Register
New posts
Unanswered

LSAT logic 2

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
  Oldest Best Reply
Search for:
 
Print view
First unread post
Author Message
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1683
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

LSAT logic 2 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 03:29
Tall children can generally reach high shelves easily. Short children can generally reach high shelves only with difficulty. It is known that short children are more likely than are tall children to become short adults. Therefore, if short children are taught to reach high shelves easily, the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease.

A reasoning error in the argument is that the argument

(A) attributes a characteristic of an individual member of a group to the group as a whole
(B) presupposes that which is to be proved
(C) refutes a generalization by mean of an exceptional case
(D) assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has be indicated
(E) take lack of evidence for the existence of a state of affairs as evidence that there can be no such state of affairs
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 258
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 03:39
D
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 05:24
1 min. D as well.
There is a correlation between tall children and short adult. Author immediately takes this as a given fact
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 399
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: LSAT logic 2 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 07:26
I think that it is D. Clearly indicates a faulty causal relation "if..then" in the strong conclusion.

A - This is not inductive reasoning (specific to general)
B - The argument never presupposes that "the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease".
C - Does not quote any exceptional case.
E - Not proving any "lack of such state of affairs"

stolyar wrote:
Tall children can generally reach high shelves easily. Short children can generally reach high shelves only with difficulty. It is known that short children are more likely than are tall children to become short adults. Therefore, if short children are taught to reach high shelves easily, the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease.

A reasoning error in the argument is that the argument

(A) attributes a characteristic of an individual member of a group to the group as a whole
(B) presupposes that which is to be proved
(C) refutes a generalization by mean of an exceptional case
(D) assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has be indicated
(E) take lack of evidence for the existence of a state of affairs as evidence that there can be no such state of affairs

_________________

Awaiting response,

Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 07:37
D says it all.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1031
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 08:54
funny CR :)

D it is.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 165
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 15:33
Agrre D..

Although, B made me think a bit.. :beatup
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 323
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 21:21
D by POE
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 323
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2004, 21:25
Sorry for another post. I think the flaw here is assumes a two-way causal relationship where only a one-way causal relationship has be indicated.
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1683
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2004, 01:35
D is correct
  [#permalink] 13 Jul 2004, 01:35
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
 New posts LSAT logic stolyar 5 12 Jul 2004, 01:47
New posts LSAT logic 1 stolyar 4 12 Jul 2004, 03:27
New posts Does anyone know if the Powerscore LSAT Logic Reasoning kilograms 3 15 Oct 2008, 08:42
New posts Powerscore CR or LSAT Logical Reasoning? Shoumik 0 31 May 2011, 18:14
New posts 1 EXPERTS_POSTS_IN_THIS_TOPIC LSAT Logical Reasoning - Relevant Chapters jrawls 4 08 Apr 2012, 15:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by

LSAT logic 2

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews  
Print view
First unread post

Moderators: metallicafan, rajeevrks27, Zarrolou, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab

Search for:


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®.

Main navigation

GMAT Resources

Partners

MBA Resources

www.gmac.com|www.mba.com