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

 It is currently 24 Aug 2016, 19:15

### 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

# Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1366
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 506 [0], given: 10

Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 17:00
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.

The above CR is from the 1000series. This question has been posted on the forum but there are multiple OAs. I dont seem to agree with the OA in 1000CR. Please explain your answers and join the discussion.
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 285 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 09:30
E. Whats wrong?
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 142 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 11:09
1
KUDOS
I agree it E.

I got it down to A and E and got a little confused.

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.

He says in the second part that they are justifiable on the same grounds but does not show how.
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1366
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 506 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 19:18
gixxer1000 wrote:
I agree it E.

I got it down to A and E and got a little confused.

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.

He says in the second part that they are justifiable on the same grounds but does not show how.

I was caught between A and E. Your highlights in red explain why E is a better choice. Thanks!
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 548 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 19:49
Yup - E it is ... great explanation gixer +1.
gixxer1000 wrote:
I agree it E.

I got it down to A and E and got a little confused.

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.

He says in the second part that they are justifiable on the same grounds but does not show how.
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 May 2008, 09:50
chose A at first but gixxer's explanation for E is good.

Interested to know what the OA is.
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

07 May 2008, 17:56

Initially Susan says, animal experimentation is justifiable if it can lead to cure human ailments. In the next conversation, she is saying that animal experimentation is justifiable for non-life saving (non-critical) aspects.

Option B is the one which clearly highlights the thinking pattern of Susan.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

07 May 2008, 18:36

The logical flaw Susan commits is called Equivocation. Equivocation involves using a word in two different ways with distinct meanings in the same argument. In this case, Susan uses the word "value" differently from one explanation to the next.

In the first, value refers to the weight of the worth those who oopose experimentation place on human life.

In the second, Susan uses the word value again but this time meaning the qualities of human life which are important or worthwhile (in her opinion).

Choice E is not correct because failing to show how it preserves lives is not a logical flaw. While it is an incomplete and poor argument, it is not a logical flaw.
SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2008, 21:51
I got C also.
_________________

Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 06:50
comebackkid wrote:

The logical flaw Susan commits is called Equivocation. Equivocation involves using a word in two different ways with distinct meanings in the same argument. In this case, Susan uses the word "value" differently from one explanation to the next.

In the first, value refers to the weight of the worth those who oopose experimentation place on human life.

In the second, Susan uses the word value again but this time meaning the qualities of human life which are important or worthwhile (in her opinion).

Choice E is not correct because failing to show how it preserves lives is not a logical flaw. While it is an incomplete and poor argument, it is not a logical flaw.

She uses value in two different senses but it is not the flaw in the argument.

"While it is an incomplete and poor argument, it is not a logical flaw."

Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.

If you fail to demonstrate a point that is a logical flaw. A poor argument will have a logical flaw or else it wouldnt be poor argument, it would be a sound argument.

Argument:
Animal Experimentation preserves human life therefore people who oppose animal experimentations do not value human life.

Counter Argument:
But there is experimentation on cosmetics that dont preserve human life.

Here the flaw of the argument has been exposed. This should now be rebutted showing how cosmetics preserve human life.

Rebuttal:
These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds (in other words the Susan feels that they save lives). Cosmetics are worthwhile values to support.

So while Susan says that cosmetic experimentation is justifiable on the grounds that it preserves lives, she doesn't provide any support to show that it does actually save lives.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 07:50
gixxer1000 wrote:
comebackkid wrote:

The logical flaw Susan commits is called Equivocation. Equivocation involves using a word in two different ways with distinct meanings in the same argument. In this case, Susan uses the word "value" differently from one explanation to the next.

In the first, value refers to the weight of the worth those who oopose experimentation place on human life.

In the second, Susan uses the word value again but this time meaning the qualities of human life which are important or worthwhile (in her opinion).

Choice E is not correct because failing to show how it preserves lives is not a logical flaw. While it is an incomplete and poor argument, it is not a logical flaw.

She uses value in two different senses but it is not the flaw in the argument.

"While it is an incomplete and poor argument, it is not a logical flaw."

Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.

If you fail to demonstrate a point that is a logical flaw. A poor argument will have a logical flaw or else it wouldnt be poor argument, it would be a sound argument.

Argument:
Animal Experimentation preserves human life therefore people who oppose animal experimentations do not value human life.

Counter Argument:
But there is experimentation on cosmetics that dont preserve human life.

Here the flaw of the argument has been exposed. This should now be rebutted showing how cosmetics preserve human life.

Rebuttal:
These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds (in other words the Susan feels that they save lives). Cosmetics are worthwhile values to support.

So while Susan says that cosmetic experimentation is justifiable on the grounds that it preserves lives, she doesn't provide any support to show that it does actually save lives.

The fact that Susan says "These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support" evidences her equivocation with respect to the word value. She is claiming that because cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human "values" the experimentation is justified.

This is a classic example of a fallacy that violates the Acceptability Criterion otherwise known as a Fallacy of Linguistic Confusion. The specific fallacy is the Fallacy of Equivocation which is defined as: "A fallacy which consists in directing an opponent toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning."

In a good argument, the words or phrases employed must retain the same meanings throughout the argument. One who equivocates has etiher intentioally or carelessly allowed a key word to shift in meaning. A failure to recognize that a word or phrase is functioning in one part of an argument in quite a different sense from how it does in another can make it look as though support is begin given to the claimat issue, simply because the words have the apperance or sound. Indeed, the argument may appear to satisfy all the criteria of a good argument. Deception of this kind is particularly difficult to detect in arguments in which the trnasition in meaning can be concealed.

Once the equivocal terms are recognized, the logical connection that was assumed to exist between the premises is disrupted, because the key terms lack the uniformity of meaning that is required to relate premises. When such confusion, or change in meaning, severs teh connection between the meaning, the premises are rendered unacceptable and no conclusion can be drawn or inferred from them.

Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 07:53
Gemini,
What was the OA that you noted you disagreed with in your original post?
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 08:18
comebackkid wrote:
The fact that Susan says "These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support" evidences her equivocation with respect to the word value. She is claiming that because cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human "values" the experimentation is justified.

This is a classic example of a fallacy that violates the Acceptability Criterion otherwise known as a Fallacy of Linguistic Confusion. The specific fallacy is the Fallacy of Equivocation which is defined as: "A fallacy which consists in directing an opponent toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning."

In a good argument, the words or phrases employed must retain the same meanings throughout the argument. One who equivocates has etiher intentioally or carelessly allowed a key word to shift in meaning. A failure to recognize that a word or phrase is functioning in one part of an argument in quite a different sense from how it does in another can make it look as though support is begin given to the claimat issue, simply because the words have the apperance or sound. Indeed, the argument may appear to satisfy all the criteria of a good argument. Deception of this kind is particularly difficult to detect in arguments in which the trnasition in meaning can be concealed.

Once the equivocal terms are recognized, the logical connection that was assumed to exist between the premises is disrupted, because the key terms lack the uniformity of meaning that is required to relate premises. When such confusion, or change in meaning, severs teh connection between the meaning, the premises are rendered unacceptable and no conclusion can be drawn or inferred from them.

Here is the flaw in your argument. The use of the word 'value' was placed in the argument to confuse and distract you.

Susans first argument has nothing to do with the word 'value'.

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.

The true argument that she is trying to convey is that animal experimentaion is OK because it cures human ailments.

Which is why when Melvin tries to disporve her argument he attacks her flaw that not all animal experimentaion is for cures of 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.

Susan respons by saying experiments are justifiable on the same gounds. Again the argument continues to be about wheter the experiments are OK. She then states that these cosmetic values are worthile human values deserving of support. But her original argument was that they lead to cures for human ailments. She fails to make the connection between the two and her argument falls apart.

She assumes that supporting human values can lead to cures for human ailments.

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 285 [1] , given: 2

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 08:20
1
KUDOS
consider this example:
Fact1: In 1996, children in school A improved their grades in english dramatically.
Fact2: In 1996, computers were introduced in school A for the first time.
Conclusion: So, it is obvious that children improved their grades because of computers.
you see the flaw here? No where in two facts did they say that computers are responsible..
In addition to the fact1 and fact2 author should mention something to connect children and computers.
I mean how did the introduction of computers improved the grades?
(children using them daily ..or children used them to practice english...etc)

Without this connection we cannot say what this computers are used for. May be authorities introduced computers for accounting, mathematics...etc. (may not be for english)
Similarly, Susan should connect them.
I am sticking with E.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 09:16
While E is the easy and obvious choice it is not correct. It was written to make you choose it because it is the logical extension in one's reasoning.

The first sentence of Susan's first statement is her conlcusion.
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life.

You stated "The true argument that she is trying to convey is that animal experimentaion is OK because it cures human ailments". This is not what she claims. She claims "...it is justifiable IF it can lead to cures for human ailments". She does not claim "...it is OK because it cures human ailments".

You continue stating "Again the argument continues to be about wheter the experiments are OK. She then states that these cosmetic values are worthile human values deserving of support. But her original argument was that they lead to cures for human ailments. She fails to make the connection between the two and her argument falls apart."

The arguments is not whether the experiemnts are ok. The debate over whether the experiemnts are justifiable stems from the conclusion that the value of human life merits such experimentation.

Another reason why E is not correct: failing to provide evidence is not a 'logical flaw'. While you argued that "If you fail to demonstrate a point that is a logical flaw", this is simply not correct and is actually taught as such in every first year philosophy course on critical thinking.
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 505
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 09:23
+1 for saravalli.Stick with e too.Kudos to gmatclub,all the members.Jus too good.......
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 09:44
comebackkid wrote:
While E is the easy and obvious choice it is not correct. It was written to make you choose it because it is the logical extension in one's reasoning.

The first sentence of Susan's first statement is her conlcusion.
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life.

You stated "The true argument that she is trying to convey is that animal experimentaion is OK because it cures human ailments". This is not what she claims. She claims "...it is justifiable IF it can lead to cures for human ailments". She does not claim "...it is OK because it cures human ailments".

You continue stating "Again the argument continues to be about wheter the experiments are OK. She then states that these cosmetic values are worthile human values deserving of support. But her original argument was that they lead to cures for human ailments. She fails to make the connection between the two and her argument falls apart."

The arguments is not whether the experiemnts are ok. The debate over whether the experiemnts are justifiable stems from the conclusion that the value of human life merits such experimentation.

Another reason why E is not correct: failing to provide evidence is not a 'logical flaw'. While you argued that "If you fail to demonstrate a point that is a logical flaw", this is simply not correct and is actually taught as such in every first year philosophy course on critical thinking.

For me and most people OK can mean justifiable. If I tell you it is OK to experiment on animals that means that I think it is justifiable.

But now were arguing semantics.

Her argument is that it is justifiable because it leads to cures for human ailments and preserve human life.
She then says that cosmetic human values are worthwile. She fails to make the connection between cosmetic human values and preserving life.

In my opinion logic involves an inference and then validating that inference through demonstration. If you fail to demonstrate you inference, then that is a logical flaw.

By the way the answer is E.

11-t33191?hilit=animal+experimentation
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 09:57
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.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 09:59
My understanding from the original post by gemini is that there are multiple OAs for this questions found throughout gmatclub.

Please name source of the question.
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 64
Schools: Duke '13
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 10:05
nothing else

Last edited by comebackkid on 20 May 2008, 09:57, edited 1 time in total.
Re: CR-values   [#permalink] 08 May 2008, 10:05

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Q. Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not 2 30 May 2009, 04:12
1 Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not 14 02 Apr 2009, 15:26
1 Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not 6 14 Nov 2008, 04:30
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not 4 18 Jun 2007, 18:58
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not 8 10 Nov 2006, 19:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by