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.
05 Sep 2024, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
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:
47% (02:02) correct
53%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 298
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that only those with a soft shooting touch can develop. Wilt Chamberlain, however, was a great player, so even though he did not have a soft shooting touch he would have excelled at scoring three point shots.
Which one of the following contains a flaw that most closely parallels the flaw contained in the passage?
(A) Eighty percent of the freshmen at Berkeley go on to get a bachelor’s degree. David is a freshman at Berkeley, so he will probably complete his studies and receive a bachelor’s degree.
(B) If the police don’t act immediately to quell the disturbance, it will escalate into a riot. However, since the police are understaffed, there will be a riot.
(C) The meek shall inherit the earth. Susie received an inheritance from her grandfather, so she must be meek.
(D) During the Vietnam War, the powerful had to serve along with the poor. However, Stevens’ father was a federal judge, so Stevens was able to get a draft deferment.
(E) All dolphins are mammals and all mammals breathe air. Therefore, all mammals that breathe air are dolphins.
Which one of the following contains a flaw that most closely parallels the flaw contained in the passage?
(A) Eighty percent of the freshmen at Berkeley go on to get a bachelor’s degree. David is a freshman at Berkeley, so he will probably complete his studies and receive a bachelor’s degree.
(B) If the police don’t act immediately to quell the disturbance, it will escalate into a riot. However, since the police are understaffed, there will be a riot.
(C) The meek shall inherit the earth. Susie received an inheritance from her grandfather, so she must be meek.
(D) During the Vietnam War, the powerful had to serve along with the poor. However, Stevens’ father was a federal judge, so Stevens was able to get a draft deferment.
(E) All dolphins are mammals and all mammals breathe air. Therefore, all mammals that breathe air are dolphins.
07 Sep 2024, 12:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
This isn't a great question. It's an attempt at an LSAT-like Match the Flaw setup, but the answer doesn't match the flaw in the argument as precisely as it should. However, here's the broad outline it's operating on:
The original argument sets up a conditional relationship: 3-point --> soft touch. There are two important things to understand about conditionals: 1) they are absolute, not tendencies, and 2) we can flip and negate them to get an equivalent rule: NO soft touch --> NO 3-point. Put those together and you can see that the premise is saying that if someone doesn't have a soft touch, they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT develop the skill of shooting 3-pointers. The next sentence immediately goes against this first premise. It says that since Wilt Chamberlain was a great player, he would have broken this rule and been great at 3-pointers. This cannot be true given the first sentence.
D follows that same general outline. It presents a rule and then shows someone who breaks the rule. However, it's a very loose match to say the least. First, the initial premise isn't an absolute statement like a conditional. Surely it doesn't mean that every single person had to serve. It just means that among those forced to serve, there were both powerful people and poor people. Further, the information in the second sentence is very different from the information in the original. The information that Stevens' father was a federal judge is the only proof we have that he was among "the powerful," but it also shows why he was able to get an exemption. There's no parallel to this in the Chamberlain example. But in any case, since the original didn't set up an absolute requirement, this doesn't have to be false. The original conclusion was actually impossible. All D does is retain the loose underlying idea of a conclusion that seems to go against the premise. None of the other answer choices do that, so it's the best we've got, but I wouldn't call it a correct answer.
The original argument sets up a conditional relationship: 3-point --> soft touch. There are two important things to understand about conditionals: 1) they are absolute, not tendencies, and 2) we can flip and negate them to get an equivalent rule: NO soft touch --> NO 3-point. Put those together and you can see that the premise is saying that if someone doesn't have a soft touch, they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT develop the skill of shooting 3-pointers. The next sentence immediately goes against this first premise. It says that since Wilt Chamberlain was a great player, he would have broken this rule and been great at 3-pointers. This cannot be true given the first sentence.
D follows that same general outline. It presents a rule and then shows someone who breaks the rule. However, it's a very loose match to say the least. First, the initial premise isn't an absolute statement like a conditional. Surely it doesn't mean that every single person had to serve. It just means that among those forced to serve, there were both powerful people and poor people. Further, the information in the second sentence is very different from the information in the original. The information that Stevens' father was a federal judge is the only proof we have that he was among "the powerful," but it also shows why he was able to get an exemption. There's no parallel to this in the Chamberlain example. But in any case, since the original didn't set up an absolute requirement, this doesn't have to be false. The original conclusion was actually impossible. All D does is retain the loose underlying idea of a conclusion that seems to go against the premise. None of the other answer choices do that, so it's the best we've got, but I wouldn't call it a correct answer.
General Discussion
05 Sep 2024, 10:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer C.
The flaw in (C) parallels the flaw in the original argument because it draws a conclusion based on an irrelevant characteristic (like the irrelevant expectation from the player in the statement), similar to how the original argument concludes that Wilt Chamberlain could have excelled at three-point shots despite not having the required skill.
The flaw in (C) parallels the flaw in the original argument because it draws a conclusion based on an irrelevant characteristic (like the irrelevant expectation from the player in the statement), similar to how the original argument concludes that Wilt Chamberlain could have excelled at three-point shots despite not having the required skill.
