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

 It is currently 27 Oct 2016, 14:47

### 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

# LSAT logic 2

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 230 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 218
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2004, 03:39
D
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 409 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 393
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1810
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2004, 07:37
D says it all.
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 964
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2004, 08:54
funny CR

D it is.
Manager
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 151
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2004, 15:33
Agrre D..

Although, B made me think a bit..
Senior Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

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
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Hanoi
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 230 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2004, 01:35
D is correct
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
24 Excellent compilation of 101 LSAT Logical Reasoning 5 17 Oct 2012, 01:03
1 LSAT Logical Reasoning - Relevant Chapters 4 08 Apr 2012, 15:17
Logic question 1 23 Jan 2008, 09:56
CR/RC: Is there a LSAT CR/RC Crash course for 2-3 Weeks 0 14 Jul 2007, 14:46
logical predicate 4 06 Nov 2006, 16:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by