|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3549
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
627
[0], given: 781
|
The proper way to plan for a scientific project is first to [#permalink]
 05 Oct 2003, 01:05
Question Stats:
20% (02:53) correct
80% (01:17) wrong based on 5 sessions
21. The proper way to plan for a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. Th U.S space station project does not conform to this ideal. when the cold war ended , the project lost its original purpose , so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting linited gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is , therefore ,abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
The reasoning in this argument is flawed because the argument
A. Attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself
B. Presupposes what it sets out to prove
C. Faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable
D. Contains statements that lead to a self contradiction
E. Concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
Last edited by Praetorian on 05 Oct 2003, 12:53, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 68
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
another tough one but still would go with C . Asuumption being that cold war end couldnt have been forseeable by the planners. let me know the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3549
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
627
[0], given: 781
|
ngulati wrote: another tough one but still would go with C . Asuumption being that cold war end couldnt have been forseeable by the planners. let me know the answer.
nope, not correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 773
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
IMO the answer is E.
_________________
Best,
AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3549
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
627
[0], given: 781
|
AkamaiBrah wrote: IMO the answer is E.
can you please explain
how does "fatal" come into the picture??
thanks
praetorian
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3549
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
627
[0], given: 781
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
05 Oct 2003, 12:23
praetorian123 wrote: 21. The proper way to plan for a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. Th U.S space station project does not conform to this ideal. when the cold war ended , the project lost its original purpose , so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting linited gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is , therefore ,abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
The reasoning in this argument is flawed because the argument
A. Attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself
B. Presupposes what it sets out to prove
C. Faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable
D. Contains statements that lead to a self contradiction
E. Concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 13
Location: LA
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would say the answer is A. This seems to be the best answer, although I am not sure why attacking a proponent of the claim doesn't translate into attacking the claim itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 13
Location: LA
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would say the answer is A. This seems to be the best answer, although I am not sure why attacking a proponent of the claim doesn't translate into attacking the claim itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Posts: 37
Location: Peru
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Why not D?
I disagree with the "fatal" thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 262
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
IMHO answer: E
argument says that project is proper if it first set its goal and then accomplishes it in the best way.
Author concludes that Sapce sattion is failure. Why?
Because it went about achieving its goal, that of conducting linited gravity experiments, even though other alternatives were available.
So author argues that since project does't conform to the second guideline of a proper project it should not be carried out/stopped altogther.
E - clearly states this line of reasoning of author: he points out a shortcoming, gives evidence for that but concludes that it is serious/fatal..!!
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 13
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
13 Jul 2010, 04:41
Pretty neat question... give it a crack...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
13 Jul 2010, 06:31
E . Author is making big fuss about a small thing. Jus that another alternative "such experiments can be done in an alternative way" exists. Also we don know which alernative is better .
_________________
R E S P E C T
Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 91
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 2
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
13 Jul 2010, 13:41
go with E whats the OA?
_________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amar
http://amarnaik.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 3
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
17 Jul 2010, 04:58
KissGMAT wrote: E . Author is making big fuss about a small thing. Jus that another alternative "such experiments can be done in an alternative way" exists. Also we don know which alernative is better . E
_________________
consider cudos if you like my post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 4
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
17 Jul 2010, 05:40
I would go with B.
Because the argument presupposes about how scientific projects should be planned and then on that basis gives judgement on why the space shuttle should not be built
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 447
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 112
|
Re: CR : Space Station [#permalink]
18 Jul 2010, 01:47
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR : Space Station
[#permalink]
18 Jul 2010, 01:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
