Either restrictions must be placed on gun ownership or the gangs in th

Either Restriction on ownership of Guns ===== OR ===== Destruction of Society by gangs

Since destruction of Society is not desirable we must restrict Gun ownership.


A or B =====> B not desirable======> Hence back to A

What is the flaw in this conclusion ?

A. Gangs do not want to destroy society. - Out of scope we are dealing with ownership of guns and assuming that Gangs will destroy society.

B. The author does not offer an option between the two alternatives.

True , there is no option Either A or B , since B is -ve we are left with only option A

The reasoning seems predetermined since there are 2 options and one is -ve we have to choose the other one....

C. Guns are not a real threat to our way of life. - Guns are a threat to society , that is what we have assumed and that is what we are fearing that gangs will destroy the society.

D. Most gang members do not own guns - Out of scope..

E. The author uses circular reasoning. - This is definitely not a case of Circular reasoning circular reasoning - for more on Circular reasoning visit : https://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -question/


Hence IMO B

Good question and food for thought ( Particularly for circular reasoning )
I

I think it's a bad idea to study from low quality questions like this one. In a GMAT CR question, the statements preceding a conclusion are premises. Premises can't be wrong. So if this were a real GMAT question, the first sentence would be a fact: "Either restrictions must be placed on gun ownership or the gangs in this country will use them to destroy society."
If that's a factual premise, then there truly are only two alternatives: restrict gun ownership, or allow gangs to destroy everything. It's not a flaw in the argument that other possibilities weren't considered unless that premise was wrong, and premises can't be wrong.

I think it's counterproductive for test takers to study questions like this, because it might lead a test taker to use faulty logic on real GMAT CR questions.

This is a black and white fallacy; the author has taken away the scope of varying jugdements from the readers which results in an extreme argument! B correctly defines the fallacy or flaw.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.