Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 08 Dec 2016, 18:20

### 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

# Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 470
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 4

Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2010, 14:09
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

32% (02:44) correct 68% (01:43) wrong based on 83 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 368 [0], given: 47

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2010, 14:28
vscid wrote:
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.

Would go with A....

As the stem talks shows that the unknown reason for the employees to stick around in Microfirm is being used as a base for prediciton of the employees to leave the comptech!
In A.... Robert doesnt gamnble... and he is never been penniless... there could be more reasons to this and not that he doesnt gamble. Hence the same methodology for Gina is wrong...!
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Manager
Status: Its Wow or Never
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 205
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2010, 04:32
vscid wrote:
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.

D acc to me..
OA plz?
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think you can,you can
If you think you can't,you are right.

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 486

Kudos [?]: 1284 [1] , given: 11

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2010, 11:41
1
KUDOS
Good call Jeetesh,

Indeed, the most salient aspect of this passage is the fact that a correlation is being read as causation.

Conclusion: CompTech needs to pay as much as Microfirm or people will leave.

Premise: People at Microfirm get paid a lot of money and don't leave.

Assumption: Correlation = Causation (i.e. Microfirm employees stay only because of money)

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

Conclusion: Gina won't be penniless is she avoids gambling.

Premise: Robert doesn't gamble and hasn't been penniless

Assumption: Correlation = Causation (i.e. Robert isn't penniless only because he avoids gambling)

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.
Problem: This is just backwards reasoning, nothing like the passage.

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.
Problem: Same as B, only there something DID NOT happen, and here it DID.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.
Problem: This one wears the clothes of causation = correlation, but it isn't actually. Remember, for that trick to work, they have to describe actual events (i.e. Dave practices a lot of squash and is great at squash, therefore one must practice a lot of squash to be great at squash). But this actually tells us "Diligent practice results in perfection", which means that YES, "one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection". This is just causation=causation.

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.
Problem: The last phrase here invalidates it, because it goes a step further than the passage. In the passage, a recommendation was made, but not an anti-recommendation like this one.

Hope that helps!
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 368 [0], given: 47

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2010, 11:55
Thanks Tommy!
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 470
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 15:57
OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D
.

_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 486

Kudos [?]: 1284 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 15:59
Not to take issue, but there is no way the correct answer to that question is D. I'd bet a hefty sum on it. There's absolutely no similarity between the passage and answer choice D.

Could you recheck, or cite the source?
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 470
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 16:21
TommyWallach wrote:
Not to take issue, but there is no way the correct answer to that question is D. I'd bet a hefty sum on it. There's absolutely no similarity between the passage and answer choice D.

Could you recheck, or cite the source?

I completely agree with you.
In fact, my reasoning matches yours.
Source, strangely, is Peterson.

_________________

-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 486

Kudos [?]: 1284 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 16:37
No worries! Silly Peterson...
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 330
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2010, 18:43
I'm also with A. But still wants to know what the explanation has been given by Peterson to pick D?
Could you please be kind enough to share that with us?
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
Posts: 123
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V37
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2010, 01:44
I will give my shot:

Statement 1: Microfilm (A) retains its employees
Conclusion: if Comptech (B) does not raise its salaries to the same level of (A), employees of (B) will likely leave their jobs

Missing assumption: Salary is the dominant reason for someone to leave any company

a) if it happened to A, it will happen to B. Not the same flaw
b) If someone does A, it will happen B. B did not happen, then someone did not do A. Not the same flaw
c) If A happens, B will happen too. B occurred, then A must have happened. Not the same flaw
d) A results in B. Then B is the only way to achieve A. Not the same flaw
e)
Statement 1: Cars type A are more stolen than cars type B.
Conclusion: A owners must contract theft insurance, while B owners not

Missing premise: The risk of a type B car be stolen is low enough.

IMO E
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2010, 05:56
IMO A

In the given argument, an inference is drawn for a given entity (UniComp) on the basis information of other entity(Microfirm)..

Not going in too much details...Only A discuss a case with two entities..!!
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 194
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2010, 00:47
I went with C .......while reading options I forgot to go back to A .............silly me .......I think I would have chosen A over C ...... Thanks Tommy ...........I have Peterson Cd ......I haven't tried till now but am worried after the question weather its worth trying it ...
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 24

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 02:55
It has to be A coz it is the closest to the original reasoning
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 170
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 11:24
IMO A
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 395
Location: Chicago, IL
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 17:39
+1 FOR d.
_________________

Hard work is the main determinant of success

Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2010, 19:46
D for me
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 40 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 15:23
1
KUDOS
The answer is D. Keep in mind that we are asked to identify the answer choice that parallels the flaw in the stimulus. So step 1 would be to identify the flaw in the stimulus. What is the flaw? Simply put, the argument is structured as follows: A ---> B; Not A ----> Not B.

Premise: High salary ---> employees won't leave
Conclusion: Not high salary ---> employees will leave

This is clearly a case of mistaken negation, that is the author negated both sides without switching them. The correct contrapositive of the premise would have been:

Employees leave ---> Not high salary. That is, if Comptech's employees leave, it would mean that Comptech did not raise their salaries to match those of Microfirm's.

Now take a look at D:

Premise: Diligent practice ---> perfection
Conclusion: No diligent practice ---> no perfection (if one MUST practice diligently to achieve perfection, as this answer choice states, it follows that if one does not practice diligently, one cannot achieve perfection).

This answer choice clearly parallels the flaw in the stimulus/author's argument. As a side note, the correct contrapositive for the premise should have been:

Not perfection ----> Did not practice diligently. That is, if one did not achieve perfection, then he/she did not practice diligently.

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

Premise: Not gamble ----> not penniless
Conclusion: Not gamble ---> not penniless

A---->B; A -----> B

Even if this answer choice contains a flaw, it does not parallel the flaw in the author's argument. For this to be the correct answer, the conclusion should have been:

Gamble ---> penniless. That is, if Gina gambles, she will become penniless.

Hope this helps.

Last edited by Xmarksthespot on 20 Sep 2010, 15:56, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 15:52
TommyWallach wrote:
Good call Jeetesh,

Indeed, the most salient aspect of this passage is the fact that a correlation is being read as causation.

Conclusion: CompTech needs to pay as much as Microfirm or people will leave.

Premise: People at Microfirm get paid a lot of money and don't leave.

Assumption: Correlation = Causation (i.e. Microfirm employees stay only because of money)

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

Conclusion: Gina won't be penniless is she avoids gambling.

Premise: Robert doesn't gamble and hasn't been penniless

Assumption: Correlation = Causation (i.e. Robert isn't penniless only because he avoids gambling)

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.
Problem: This is just backwards reasoning, nothing like the passage.

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.
Problem: Same as B, only there something DID NOT happen, and here it DID.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.
Problem: This one wears the clothes of causation = correlation, but it isn't actually. Remember, for that trick to work, they have to describe actual events (i.e. Dave practices a lot of squash and is great at squash, therefore one must practice a lot of squash to be great at squash). But this actually tells us "Diligent practice results in perfection", which means that YES, "one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection". This is just causation=causation.
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.
Problem: The last phrase here invalidates it, because it goes a step further than the passage. In the passage, a recommendation was made, but not an anti-recommendation like this one.

Hope that helps!

Regarding the bolded and italicized portions in your explanation to answer D, I think you are a bit off there. "Diligent practice results in perfection" does not equate to "one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection". Diligent practice could be just one of many ways to achieve perfection, and I don't necessarily have to practice diligently to achieve perfection. It's just like the statement "If I study hard, I will get an A, therefore I must study hard to get an A". In reality, even if I don't study hard, I may still be able to get an A, maybe by cheating, or paying off my professor, etc.
Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 9
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V38
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2010, 05:43
vscid wrote:
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.

The Answer to Question is indeed 'D'.
Let me try to explain:

"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."

Here the assumption is Raising salary is the only way to keep the employees from moving out.

Consider 'D':
Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

Same here the assumption is Only diligent practice leads to perfection.

Where as in 'A':Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless. The refraining is not compulsary to be penniless.It's just one possibility.

Hope this helps.
TX,
Ismail.
Re: MicroFirm   [#permalink] 20 Nov 2010, 05:43

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Candle Corporation’s television stations are likely to have more incom 3 15 Jun 2016, 11:07
8 A recent survey has shown that today, very few people learn a language 5 26 Aug 2015, 22:59
Some manufacturers of computer software have proposed 7 21 Jul 2011, 18:28
1 Book publishers have traditionally published a few books 15 18 Jan 2010, 23:35
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation 19 14 Nov 2007, 19:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.