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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 01:32

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

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 781

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2005, 10:08
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

71% (02:26) correct 29% (03:13) wrong based on 3 sessions
8. Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound chlorocetin contained in industrial waste and previously considered harmless is in fact very dangerous. Jones has examined several areas with high concentration of chlorocetin and found that certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species. The professor says that although he failed to establish an exact mechanism by which chlorocetin hampers photosynthesis, his findings are sufficient to state that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world. This conclusion, however, is unwarranted because all that professor Jones actually established is a mere correlation between the level of chlorocetin and the speed of photosynthesis – correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors.

The highlighted portions of the text perform which of the following functions in the argument?

A: the first is the position the author disagrees with while the second is the author’s own position

B: the first contains the argument the author critiques while the second identifies a logical flaw in this argument

C: the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes while the second is a statement supporting the author’s own position

D: the first describes a phenomenon which weighs against the author’s opinion while the second reasons in favour of this opinion

E: the first contains information that, if true, could overthrow the author’s argument while the second discredits this information
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2005, 11:15
I will go with B
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 355
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2005, 11:18
B should be the answer.

A: the first is the position the author disagrees with while the second is the author’s own position
NO - The second bolded statement is not the author's own position.

B: the first contains the argument the author critiques while the second identifies a logical flaw in this argument
YES - The author is actually reviewing Jones's theory, and the second bold statement actually identifies the flaw in Jones's theory.

C: the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes while the second is a statement supporting the author’s own position
> NO. The author has stated his position, therefore the second is not supporting the author's own position

D: the first describes a phenomenon which weighs against the author’s opinion while the second reasons in favour of this opinion
>NO. the author's opinion is not the focus of this argument

E: the first contains information that, if true, could overthrow the author’s argument while the second discredits this information
> NO. The author's opinion is not being reviewed.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

 [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2005, 17:04
It should be C....

I dont see how others can be correct?

the first is evidence that is used in an argument the author disagrees with...second statement is supportin the authors argument...

Please Post OA...soon...

thanks
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 781

 [#permalink] New post 22 Jul 2005, 17:22
C is the best answer.

A and B are wrong because the author does not challenge the fact that “certain vital biological processes, such as photosynthesis, are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected speciesâ€
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 674
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 06:39
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 08:32
gmat2me2 wrote:
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?


B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 08:41
ChallengeMaker wrote:
gmat2me2 wrote:
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?


B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes


I would rather agree with B on the first BF rather than C which says that the author disputes the first BF, the author is definitely not disputing the first BF, so on this basis alone C should be eliminated.
Moreover, you yourself agree that the author AGREES with the first BF, don't you think 'C' is wrong.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 09:05
1
This post received
KUDOS
rthothad wrote:
ChallengeMaker wrote:
gmat2me2 wrote:
I am still not convinced with C....B looks better

Can anyone explain why it is not B?


B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques; in fact, he AGREES with this. He critiques the professor's conclusion (his logic), not the fact that there was a correlation between the amount of the chemical and the speed of the bio processes


I would rather agree with B on the first BF rather than C which says that the author disputes the first BF, the author is definitely not disputing the first BF, so on this basis alone C should be eliminated.
Moreover, you yourself agree that the author AGREES with the first BF, don't you think 'C' is wrong.


You are not careful. C does not say that the author disputes the first BF it says that first BF is an EVIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENT the author disputes. The evidence is first BF, the argument is how professor interpretes his findings. In his argument, professor uses first BF as EVIDENCE just as C says
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 10:05
ChallengeMaker wrote:
You are not careful. C does not say that the author disputes the first BF it says that first BF is an EVIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENT the author disputes. The evidence is first BF, the argument is how professor interpretes his findings. In his argument, professor uses first BF as EVIDENCE just as C says


May be I am missing something rather fundamental, but I interpret the first part of C "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes " to mean that the first BF is an evidence in the argument which the author disputes.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 377
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 21:33
ChallengeMaker wrote:
B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques


Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 76
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 22:27
rthothad:
As you mentioned, the first part of C is : "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes "

The argument that the author disputes is ---> chlorocetin is harmful (as suggested by Prof. Jones)
The evidence for this is ---> slower photosynthesis in the effected areas. (bolded part)

As ChallengeMaker mentioned, B is wrong because the author does not disagree with the first bold face. He only disagrees that cholorcetin is the reason for slower photosynthesis.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2005, 22:49
HowManyToGo wrote:
ChallengeMaker wrote:
B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques


Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.



B is wrong because first BF contains no argument with which the author would take issue. The author says nothing about whether he disagrees with the fact that "certain bio processes are slow" but he clearly disputes the professor's argument which is built on evidence in BF1

Note that C says that the author disputes the professor's argument (not the conclusion). This wording describes the situation pretty accurately because the author indeed disputes the arguemnt i.e. how it is constructed. He does not like the logic behind the argument so we can say that he disputes the argument.

Finally, the author's main point in this passage is to prove that the professor's claim is unwarranted. This is the author's position; it can be put into such words: "it is premature to conclude that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world". Pretty nice and clear position, don't you agree?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 870
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2005, 05:11
forumsmba wrote:
rthothad:
As you mentioned, the first part of C is : "the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes "

The argument that the author disputes is ---> chlorocetin is harmful (as suggested by Prof. Jones)
The evidence for this is ---> slower photosynthesis in the effected areas. (bolded part)

As ChallengeMaker mentioned, B is wrong because the author does not disagree with the first bold face. He only disagrees that cholorcetin is the reason for slower photosynthesis.


When one reads the first part of C, the way 'the argument' is worded makes one refer to the entire passage not to 'chlorocetin is harmful' and can you tell me what made you think that 'the argument' is indeed 'chlorocetin is harmful'. Infact, the argument is the last few words after the second BF - "correlation that might not reflect any causal relationship between the factors"
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 377
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2005, 06:13
ChallengeMaker wrote:
HowManyToGo wrote:
ChallengeMaker wrote:
B is bad for one simple reason: the role of the first bold-faced portion is indicated wrongly. "certain vital biological processes...are slower in these areas than is usual for the inspected species" is not something the author critiques


Why not.

The author does not say a thing about "the chemical being harmful or not" , all that he says is that he is not happy with the conclusion derived from a premise.In effect he is just critiquing the "logical deduction".

If in fact he made a stmt like "therefore the chem is not harmful" they we might conclude that he critiqued the biologist's claim.

NOTE : he says the conclusion is unwarranted ( NOT right or wrong).For all that we know the author might not be a biologist, but a plain logician hired to evaluate the logical validity of a claim !

BTW - what is the author's position here as stated in C ( I think he just points a flaw on the biologists claim without having a position)

ChallengeMaker what is your opinion on this ?

HMTG.
PS : had picked B.



B is wrong because first BF contains no argument with which the author would take issue. The author says nothing about whether he disagrees with the fact that "certain bio processes are slow" but he clearly disputes the professor's argument which is built on evidence in BF1

Note that C says that the author disputes the professor's argument (not the conclusion). This wording describes the situation pretty accurately because the author indeed disputes the arguemnt i.e. how it is constructed. He does not like the logic behind the argument so we can say that he disputes the argument.

Finally, the author's main point in this passage is to prove that the professor's claim is unwarranted. This is the author's position; it can be put into such words: "it is premature to conclude that chlorocetin is a dangerous chemical affecting natural world". Pretty nice and clear position, don't you agree?



"correlation that ***might*** not reflect any causal relationship between the factors"

The author does not prove anything here, he just bring in an argument which undermines the claim of the biologist(he does NOT REFUTE the claim) . It might be proven later that the plants slow processes were in fact due to the chemical , which was just a possibility when the biologist's claim was out.

What the author says is that the correlation **might not ** reflect causal relatioship.The way I read it "It is just a possiblity that the data might not point to a causal relationship"- He is not refuting anything here, just probably asking for some loose ends to be tied up.

Yes ! you are right when you say that BF1 has no argument which the author critiques.

Though POE might suggest C ( C still has to be valid)

HMTG.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 76
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2005, 19:50
rthothad:

I didn't think of the entire passage as an 'argument'. I read it as:

The argument that the author disputes: chlorocetin is harmful (as believed by Prof. Jones)
The author's position (argument): No proof that chlorocetin is harmful

I read first part of C as: 'the first is an evidence in the argument the author disputes

-fm
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 374
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Jul 2005, 20:02
C it is for me quite clearly.

Jones presents the first BF as evidence of an argument that the author disputes.

Second BF supports the author's position that Jones' argument is not provable.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2313
Followers: 277

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2014, 21:51
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.
Re: Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound   [#permalink] 12 Jul 2014, 21:51
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A chemical compound has been developed that disrupts the goodyear2013 1 23 Mar 2014, 13:36
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic Gas hydrates, chemical compounds of water and natural gas, jho1 18 06 Jun 2007, 00:41
Gas hydrates, chemical compounds of water and natural gas, ttanvir 7 11 Dec 2006, 16:17
Gas hydrates, chemical compounds of water and natural gas, Allen760 7 20 Oct 2006, 17:01
Gas hydrates, chemical compounds of water and natural gas, jerrywu 4 10 Oct 2006, 07:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Professor Jones has claimed that chemical compound

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| 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®.