Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.


I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question

Actually I went against B and C because the first sentence in both these choices have an if clause. While in the original statement, the fact that very few engineers left MicroFirm was just that...a fact. There is no preceding if clause which tell us "why" they might be choosing not to leave. Both the piano and the broken window have a condition that needs to be fulfilled -- Humidity or a ball thrown at it.

I'll go against everybody and pick D. A would be my second choice, though.

I believe finder is right, there's no conditional on the first statement, only a statement of fact. We are not being told why Microfirm keeps employees, only that they do. CompTech assumes it's because of the salaries. The trick here is that the assumption is being expressed in the answer choice.

In D, the first sentence states that having salaries prevents people from leaving, thus, you must increase salaries to prevent people from leaving.

I believe this is not from the OG, because I haven't seen an official question that incorporates the assumption into the answer choice like this one does. I may be wrong.

This is what I think anyway. Regards.

yeah, I knew it was not from an official source. You can tell right away, because the GMAT (edited to correct an unspecified pronoun) does not leave loose ends.

Answer E cannot be it because it doesn't have someone/something trying to be like another one. In the stem, Company B was trying to be like A. Does that makes sense?

What's the answer? Do you have the OG?

sounds to be A

This is quite challenging, but the answer appears to be D.

We could paraphrase the passage as follows:

Microfirm's high salaries -> employees don't seek work elsewhere.
Therefore, without high salaries, employees will seek work elsewhere.

This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because you know
a -> b, it doesn't follow that (not a) -> (not b).

D follows the same pattern. D says that practicing leads to perfection, so not practicing does not lead to perfection. This is denying the antecedent.

A is a hasty generalization. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech will not leave their jobs if CompTech raises their salaries.

B is actually good reasoning. It's known as modus tollens: if a -> b implies (not b) -> (not a). Think about it: if Danny throwing the ball means the window breaks, then if the window's not broken, Danny didn't throw the ball.

C affirms the consequent. It says that a -> b, therefore b -> a. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech don't leave either, so they must be paid as much as MicroFirm employees.

And no one seems tempted by E, which is too strong, but not unreasonable.

I think A. It's a confusion of correlation and causation.

I do not see any reason for D to be OA. A is far better than D.

any OE? Source?

oh ok. i have nothing to say about these materials as i have not used them. but they are not up to the level taht OG/Manhatan materials have.