Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
01 Aug 2023, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
53% (02:05) correct
47%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 1519
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Recording executive: Many musicians resent Web sites that allow people to copy music free of charge. The musicians argue, among other things, that each person who chooses to copy a song from such a Web site represents less profit for the song's creator. However, by providing free publicity for the musician, the widespread copying of a song over the Internet appears to increase record sales. There is a strong correlation between increases in the popularity of a song on music-copying Web sites and increases in sales of the album containing that song.
The recording executive's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
A. It overlooks the possibility that two correlated phenomena stem independently from some third factor and that neither causes the other.
B. It fails to adequately address the possibility that even if a phenomenon causes a certain effect in some instances, it may have the opposite effect in other instances.
C. It takes for granted that if a practice increases overall record sales, then musicians have no legitimate reason to resent that practice.
D. It requires the assumption, for which no support is provided, that significant sales of an album containing a song seldom occur before that song becomes popular on music-copying Web sites.
E. It overlooks the possibility that most of the songs in albums that are purchased have not previously been copied by the purchasers from any music-copying Web site.
The recording executive's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
A. It overlooks the possibility that two correlated phenomena stem independently from some third factor and that neither causes the other.
B. It fails to adequately address the possibility that even if a phenomenon causes a certain effect in some instances, it may have the opposite effect in other instances.
C. It takes for granted that if a practice increases overall record sales, then musicians have no legitimate reason to resent that practice.
D. It requires the assumption, for which no support is provided, that significant sales of an album containing a song seldom occur before that song becomes popular on music-copying Web sites.
E. It overlooks the possibility that most of the songs in albums that are purchased have not previously been copied by the purchasers from any music-copying Web site.
10 May 2024, 02:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
This argument relies on a classic flaw: correlation vs. causation. The author uses a correlation between X and Y (increase in copying, increase in legit sales) to attempt to prove that X causes Y (increase in copying CAUSES increase in legit sales). Any time we see this flaw, we can identify a few alternatives. Maybe X doesn't cause Y, but rather one of the following alternatives is true:
*Y causes X. (In other words, maybe increased sales lead to increased copying, not the other way around).
*Z causes X and Y. (In other words, some other factor, such as publicity, increases both copying and legit sales, and neither causes the other.)
*Coincidence. (These just happened to correlate for no reason.) This usually only applies when the data set is small. For instance, if I turn the lights off and the phone rings, it may not be that one thing caused the other--it may just be a coincidence. But if my phone rings EVERY time the lights go out, it's hard to write it off as a coincidence.
One other thing before we get to the answers. This is a FLAW question, a type we don't see too frequently on the GMAT. What many people (including some folks on this thread) don't realize about flaw questions is that their answers can come in three types. 1) They can point out an assumption, using terms such as "assumes," "presumes," "takes for granted," or "fails to establish." C and D are both assumption-type answers. 2) They can point out potential weakens, using terms such as "overlooks the possibility," "neglects," or "fails to address." A, B, and E are all weaken-type answers. 3) They can describe the flaw in abstract terms, using descriptions such as "conflates correlation and causation" or "draws a general conclusion based on an a sample that is unlikely to be representative." Although A-B are written directly as weakens, they also feature abstract descriptions, with no mention of the actual terms from the argument, so they fall a bit into this category, too.
A) CORRECT. There's the "Z causes X and Y" that we predicted. This is phrased as a weaken, and if a third factor caused both of the increases, then it would not be clear that one caused the other. This makes A a successful weaken, so it correctly describes a flaw in the reasoning.
B) First, this ignores the fact that the premise is about song downloads in general, not just a few isolated cases. They may well have considered that a different result is possible, but found that this doesn't happen or rarely happens, so it's not something that the argument clearly overlooked. Second, the conclusion only says that copying "appears to increase" record sales, not that it must always do so and could never have the opposite result. In any case, since the argument never proves causation in the first place, it doesn't seem pressing for us to point out that causation may not ALWAYS happen. It may be that it doesn't happen at all!
C) This is addressing a further conclusion that the author never makes. The author mentions the resentment that musicians feel, but only argues with the part about sales. The author never concludes that musicians have no reason to resent free copying.
D) This seems pretty closely related to our "Y causes X" alternative. Since it's phrased as an assumption, we can test it by negation: is it a problem for the argument if significant sales of an album OFTEN (rather than seldom) occur before the songs become popular on copying sites? Well . . . no. The key difference here is a subtle one, but the correlation we're given is about INCREASES, not "significant sales." So even if there are significant sales (let's call that 100k in downloads, just to have a figure) before the copying takes off, it could still be that an INCREASE in copying (from near-zero to, say, 10k per day) could still lead to an INCREASE in legit sales. Also, D tells us nothing about the nearness of these sales to the increase. If the copying happens, say, a full year after the strong initial sales, then the correlation in the premise is not going to be at stake. According to the premise, we'd still expect to see an increase in sales near the time of the increase in copying.
E) This seems to be trying to attack the connection between copying and legit sales, but the author never said that the SAME people will get the songs both ways. (Why would they?) We just need to know whether more copying leads to more sales, and E doesn't give us any further information to help figure that out.
*Y causes X. (In other words, maybe increased sales lead to increased copying, not the other way around).
*Z causes X and Y. (In other words, some other factor, such as publicity, increases both copying and legit sales, and neither causes the other.)
*Coincidence. (These just happened to correlate for no reason.) This usually only applies when the data set is small. For instance, if I turn the lights off and the phone rings, it may not be that one thing caused the other--it may just be a coincidence. But if my phone rings EVERY time the lights go out, it's hard to write it off as a coincidence.
One other thing before we get to the answers. This is a FLAW question, a type we don't see too frequently on the GMAT. What many people (including some folks on this thread) don't realize about flaw questions is that their answers can come in three types. 1) They can point out an assumption, using terms such as "assumes," "presumes," "takes for granted," or "fails to establish." C and D are both assumption-type answers. 2) They can point out potential weakens, using terms such as "overlooks the possibility," "neglects," or "fails to address." A, B, and E are all weaken-type answers. 3) They can describe the flaw in abstract terms, using descriptions such as "conflates correlation and causation" or "draws a general conclusion based on an a sample that is unlikely to be representative." Although A-B are written directly as weakens, they also feature abstract descriptions, with no mention of the actual terms from the argument, so they fall a bit into this category, too.
A) CORRECT. There's the "Z causes X and Y" that we predicted. This is phrased as a weaken, and if a third factor caused both of the increases, then it would not be clear that one caused the other. This makes A a successful weaken, so it correctly describes a flaw in the reasoning.
B) First, this ignores the fact that the premise is about song downloads in general, not just a few isolated cases. They may well have considered that a different result is possible, but found that this doesn't happen or rarely happens, so it's not something that the argument clearly overlooked. Second, the conclusion only says that copying "appears to increase" record sales, not that it must always do so and could never have the opposite result. In any case, since the argument never proves causation in the first place, it doesn't seem pressing for us to point out that causation may not ALWAYS happen. It may be that it doesn't happen at all!
C) This is addressing a further conclusion that the author never makes. The author mentions the resentment that musicians feel, but only argues with the part about sales. The author never concludes that musicians have no reason to resent free copying.
D) This seems pretty closely related to our "Y causes X" alternative. Since it's phrased as an assumption, we can test it by negation: is it a problem for the argument if significant sales of an album OFTEN (rather than seldom) occur before the songs become popular on copying sites? Well . . . no. The key difference here is a subtle one, but the correlation we're given is about INCREASES, not "significant sales." So even if there are significant sales (let's call that 100k in downloads, just to have a figure) before the copying takes off, it could still be that an INCREASE in copying (from near-zero to, say, 10k per day) could still lead to an INCREASE in legit sales. Also, D tells us nothing about the nearness of these sales to the increase. If the copying happens, say, a full year after the strong initial sales, then the correlation in the premise is not going to be at stake. According to the premise, we'd still expect to see an increase in sales near the time of the increase in copying.
E) This seems to be trying to attack the connection between copying and legit sales, but the author never said that the SAME people will get the songs both ways. (Why would they?) We just need to know whether more copying leads to more sales, and E doesn't give us any further information to help figure that out.
01 Aug 2023, 23:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Conclusion: There is a strong correlation between increases in the popularity of a song on music-copying Web sites and increases in sales of the album containing that song.
Support Given: The widespread copying of a song over the Internet appears to increase record sales.
Therefore the recording executive believes that the increase in sale record sales is because of the widespread copying of a song over the Internet. There are no other factors at play such as reverse causality (the copying is because the song is popular - not vice versa) or external factors causing both the copying of records and the increase of sales records.
A. It overlooks the possibility that two correlated phenomena stem independently from some third factor and that neither causes the other.
Correct! The author doesn't consider and evaluate that a third factor could have been responsible for both actions. He / She concludes that the two events, copying of the song and increase in popularity are related to each other.
B. It fails to adequately address the possibility that even if a phenomenon causes a certain effect in some instances, it may have the opposite effect in other instances.
This option is a distortion and the information presented in this option goes against the premise. We know from the premise that ".....by providing free publicity for the musician, the widespread copying of a song over the Internet appears to increase record sales....". In addition, we are not presented with any details on the number of instances the observation doesn't hold true. We can eliminate this option.
C. It takes for granted that if a practice increases overall record sales, then musicians have no legitimate reason to resent that practice.
Out of scope. The question is about finding a flaw in the conclusion. We can eliminate this option.
D. It requires the assumption, for which no support is provided, that significant sales of an album containing a song seldom occur before that song becomes popular on music-copying Web sites.
The information presented in this option goes against the reasoning provided for the conclusion. The conclusion of the argument states that "There is a strong correlation between increases in the popularity of a song on music-copying Web sites and increases in sales of the album containing that song", while the option states that often the songs become popular first, and then they are downloaded from the music-copying Web sites. We can eliminate this option.
E. It overlooks the possibility that most of the songs in albums that are purchased have not previously been copied by the purchasers from any music-copying Web site.
The option is out of scope and doesn't represent a flaw in the argument. We can eliminate this option.
Option A
