Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 16:30

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 916
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 692 [4] , given: 322

Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2013, 06:03
4
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (02:31) correct 54% (01:32) wrong based on 444 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that it is strange that the public should generally show more sympathy for the rich than for the middle class, and have recommended that we allot the bulk of our sympathy for those who make a fraction of the amount made by a millionaire, since those who make millions have enough money to ease most of the real difficulties in life. I agree with these commentators, and will be glad to receive the public’s sympathy for my troubles getting a license for my new yacht, since I only make 7/8 of what a millionaire makes per year.

Which of the following best describes a flaw in Rodrigo’s reasoning?

He makes an inappropriate generalization when referring to a group.
The commentators he cites have not set a minimum and a maximum fractional value at which one can receive sympathy.
He is not a millionaire, so he cannot own a yacht.
He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term.
He accepts a claim based on its source, not its merits.
Source: Veritas Prep
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions
New!
 Veritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 41
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT Date: 12-10-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 18

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2013, 06:52
Why not B ?

commentator has not made it clear what minimum or maximum fraction of the amount made by a millionaire will make a person of middle class.
Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 55
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [2] , given: 2

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2013, 11:55
2
KUDOS
fnumiamisburg wrote:
Why not B ?

commentator has not made it clear what minimum or maximum fraction of the amount made by a millionaire will make a person of middle class.

Rodrigo's point is that since commentators said "Millionaires" shouldn't receive sympathy and since he is 1/8th short of a million, he should get sympathy.
Notice how they mention a yacht, to point out that he is rich, just not technically a 'millionaire".
D says : He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term (term= millionaire). Bang on !

Whereas, B says: The commentators he cites have not set a minimum and a maximum fractional value at which one can receive sympathy.
It doesn't matter what max and min value are. Acc to Rodrigo's reasoning, as long as he's some amount short of a millionaire, he's good to go the sympathy route .

See how D makes wayyyy more sense?
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 41
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT Date: 12-10-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 18

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2013, 13:32
thanks surbhi... D makes sense now..
Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Posts: 2
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [1] , given: 0

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2014, 13:22
1
KUDOS
surbhi87 wrote:
fnumiamisburg wrote:
Why not B ?

commentator has not made it clear what minimum or maximum fraction of the amount made by a millionaire will make a person of middle class.

Rodrigo's point is that since commentators said "Millionaires" shouldn't receive sympathy and since he is 1/8th short of a million, he should get sympathy.
Notice how they mention a yacht, to point out that he is rich, just not technically a 'millionaire".
D says : He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term (term= millionaire). Bang on !

Whereas, B says: The commentators he cites have not set a minimum and a maximum fractional value at which one can receive sympathy.
It doesn't matter what max and min value are. Acc to Rodrigo's reasoning, as long as he's some amount short of a millionaire, he's good to go the sympathy route .

See how D makes wayyyy more sense?

I agree with 'D' answer. However, I disagree with which the illicitily exploited term is.
According to Oxford Dictionary,the definition of "fraction" in English is the following:
fraction (noun)
1. A numerical quantity that is not a whole number (e.g. 1/ 2, 0.5).
2. A small or tiny part, amount, or proportion of something: he hesitated for a fraction of a second her eyes widened a fraction

Rodrigo exploits the first meaning, whereas the comentator is using the second one (IMO).
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Posts: 58
GPA: 2.71
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 21

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2015, 00:22
TGC wrote:
Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that it is strange that the public should generally show more sympathy for the rich than for the middle class, and have recommended that we allot the bulk of our sympathy for those who make a fraction of the amount made by a millionaire, since those who make millions have enough money to ease most of the real difficulties in life. I agree with these commentators, and will be glad to receive the public’s sympathy for my troubles getting a license for my new yacht, since I only make 7/8 of what a millionaire makes per year.

Which of the following best describes a flaw in Rodrigo’s reasoning?

He makes an inappropriate generalization when referring to a group.
The commentators he cites have not set a minimum and a maximum fractional value at which one can receive sympathy.
He is not a millionaire, so he cannot own a yacht.
He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term.
He accepts a claim based on its source, not its merits.
Source: Veritas Prep

Took a while to solve, but dont you guys feel a question like this is unlikely on the GMAT ?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2016, 06:00
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.
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 656
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Followers: 50

Kudos [?]: 199 [0], given: 36

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2016, 13:08
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Beautiful question... Absolutely lovely question for student of syllogism and those who love fallacies
I never liked a question better in CR than a pure fallacy based question.

EXPLAINATION :- This argument commits the fallacy of ambiguity. There are two types of ambiguity fallacy:-

1)Amphiboly:- In amphiboly, the error in reasoning results from wrong interpretation of the sentence.
Example :- Professor Richard is going to deliver a lecture on heart attacks in seminar hall therefore many people must have suffered heart attacks while they are in seminar halls. Here what the argument means is that Prof. Richard is going to deliver a lecture on heart attacks and the venue/location for the lecture is seminar hall. But the listener mistakenly think that the the lecture is about "Heart attack in Seminar Hall"

2)Equivocation:- In equivocation, the error in reasoning is caused because one word has more than one meaning and the listener uses the unintended wrong meaning to reach a conclusion
Example:- The words "Obtuse" means Not transparent, it also means stupid, dim witted, retard. Obtuse also means a triangle that has angle greater than 90 degree. If the listener uses the wrong meaning of obtuse then his argument will become wrong. For example:-
Some triangle are obtuse therefore some triangle are stupid.

NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION:- IT COMMITS THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION. THE ARGUMENT SAYS:- "We allot the bulk of our sympathy for those who make a FRACTION of the amount made by a millionaire."

FRACTION has 2 meaning :- $$\frac{numerator}{denominator}$$ and the second meaning is a small amount when compared to a bigger amount, a small part of something big.
Rodriguez uses the word FRACTION in mathematical terms and says I only make $$\frac{7}{8}$$ of what a millionaire makes per year. So give me sympathy.

D) He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term.

Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that it is strange that the public should generally show more sympathy for the rich than for the middle class, and have recommended that we allot the bulk of our sympathy for those who make a fraction of the amount made by a millionaire, since those who make millions have enough money to ease most of the real difficulties in life. I agree with these commentators, and will be glad to receive the public’s sympathy for my troubles getting a license for my new yacht, since I only make 7/8 of what a millionaire makes per year.

Which of the following best describes a flaw in Rodrigo’s reasoning?

A) He makes an inappropriate generalization when referring to a group.
B) The commentators he cites have not set a minimum and a maximum fractional value at which one can receive sympathy.
C) He is not a millionaire, so he cannot own a yacht.
D) He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term.
E) He accepts a claim based on its source, not its merits.
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016.

Re: Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2016, 13:08
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 A recent report shows that the number of collisions 1 19 Apr 2016, 08:12
27 In the country of Bedenia, officials have recently 10 02 May 2013, 23:48
1 Kate: The recent decline in numbers of the Tennessee 4 08 Jan 2012, 01:36
4 Recently, several advertisers have withdrawn their 22 08 Oct 2010, 07:49
2 Recently, several advertisers have withdrawn their 12 14 Apr 2010, 10:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by