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

It is currently 31 Aug 2016, 19:57
GMAT Club Tests

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

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

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2005, 18:43
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one's house at all. One call also be in one's house but not at home, if one owns the house but rents it out to others, for example. So one's being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument's conclusion and its claim that one can be at home without being in one's house?

A) The claim is required to establish the conclusion
B) The claim represents the point the conclusion is intended to refute.
C) The claim is compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion
D) The claim points out an ambiguity in the phrase "at home"
E) The claim is inadvertently contradicts the conclusion.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 865
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2005, 10:47
Is it D

Claim: House + Backyard = Home

Conclusion: Own house + (Backyard) = Home
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 92
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2005, 11:19
agree with D. that's what they are trying to do i.e. to say that "at home" is a vague statement
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2005, 16:38
Bumping up this thread for more participation
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 488
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2005, 20:54
i'll go with E
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jul 2005, 06:07
I 'll go with C
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 488
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jul 2005, 17:55
anyone else .....
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 6
Location: Hong Kong
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2005, 01:23
D for me.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2005, 01:52
What's the OA? Neone?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2005, 07:35
A = One being at home
B = One being inside one's house

Claim states that A can happen with or without B

Conclusion states that A is not required for B to be true.

To me the claim is just a rewording of the conclusion. Because if the conclusion is true, then the claim is true. If the conclusion is false, then B => A negating the claim.

C would be my choice.

We can also eliminate the other choices:

A is false because the claim is not necessary at all to make the conclusion, it is just a rephrased conclusion.

B is clearly false

D is false because, there is no word-play here

E is also false
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2005, 11:23
AJB77 wrote:
A = One being at home
B = One being inside one's house

Claim states that A can happen with or without B

Conclusion states that A is not required for B to be true.

To me the claim is just a rewording of the conclusion. Because if the conclusion is true, then the claim is true. If the conclusion is false, then B => A negating the claim.

C would be my choice.

We can also eliminate the other choices:

A is false because the claim is not necessary at all to make the conclusion, it is just a rephrased conclusion.

B is clearly false

D is false because, there is no word-play here

E is also false


AJB, I have a couple of follow up questions:

You say that A can happen with or without B

From the passage content (1st line) we know that A can happen without B. However nothing is said about A can happen with B correct?

All we know is

A is not dependant on B
B is not dependant on A.

I just want to make sure that i havent missed anything.

If the conclusion is negated, then we get A is required for B. If this were true, then like you said it contradicts the B !=> A paradigm. But the question just asks about the claim "one can be at home without being in one's house" [A !=> B]. So how is the claim compatible with the falsity of the conclusion? The claim has no effect on the 'falsity" on the conclusion. Ergo its "compatible"? Is that what AC C is saying?

BTW the OA is C. So you've nailed it.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2005, 18:08
See, to be honest, I was not 100% sure of C, but I figured with confidence that the rest were definitely wrong and chose C, even if I was a bit shaky. Once I chose C, I tried to make an argument for it.

To me "X is compatible with truth and falsity of Y" means that (If Y -> X AND IF ~Y -> ~X)

X = "One's being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house."

~X = "One's being at home is required for one's being in one's own house." which NEGATES the claim "One can be at home and not be in one's house at all"
  [#permalink] 05 Jul 2005, 18:08
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
15 Experts publish their posts in the topic One of Hoyle's arguments can be summarized as follows: On skbjunior 13 07 May 2011, 10:29
1 Experts publish their posts in the topic Can anyone offer an explanation for this one: That the scorpio7 7 14 Jun 2009, 20:38
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from jet1445 1 24 May 2007, 10:10
Can any one give explanation MBA2ran 5 09 Apr 2007, 22:52
One analyst predicts that Hong Kong can retain its ayushi 11 10 Oct 2006, 16:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.