Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Gixxer stated "She fails to make the connection between the two and her argument falls apart".
He is correct but the omission of evidence cited in E causes the argument to fail the Sufficiency Prinicple of argumentation. However, It does not represent a logical flaw.
The Sufficiency Principle of Argumentation states: "One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion."
While it is clear Susan fails on this principle, such failure does not equate to a 'logical flaw' which is precisely what the questions asks.
I think a good lesson to learn is that being good at the GMAT means only one thing....you're good at the GMAT. If you read through any reference materials you'll see that they are teaching you to excel on the GMAT and not in real life. The same thing holds true for grammar and some math concepts. It's best to learn what what the GMAT wants. Thats why it would be way more productive taking a prep course instead of taking a math or verbal class.
This one is actaully an LSAT question and here are multiple threads confirming E
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not [#permalink]
19 Aug 2016, 02:07
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments. Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics. Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. This option distorts what Susan says. She does not claim that "animal experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments". B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life. Even if this was the case, why would it be a logical flaw? It would just be her opinion. C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses. These two uses of the word "value" are not incompatible between each other. Indeed, they are related to each other. Furthermore, as long as she reasons her argument, she can use as many acceptions of the word "value" as she wants and her argument will still be logical. D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life. This option also distorts what Susan says. She does not assume that allconsumer products aid in the preservation of human life. E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not
19 Aug 2016, 02:07