Last visit was: 30 Apr 2026, 08:16

It is currently 30 Apr 2026, 08:16

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 8: A leading tech

1 2 3

sunshineeee

Joined: 17 May 2020

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 223

Location: Indonesia

Schools: Stern '26 (WL) Tepper '26 (WL) BU'26 (A) Ross '26 Johnson '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 22

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 02:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion:
Corporate clients adopting Dr Lin's independent AI-audit reports CAN CONFIDENTLY EXPECT the same level of rigor and impartiality

Why?
- because Dr. LI served the task force, and she is independent

Thinking on the Assumption link
- the same level of rigor between Dr Lin and who? the team project
- Why call it independent? while the joint research assembled by NVIDIA
- Why call it rigorous and unbiased? not stated?

The assumption link
The author believes as Dr Lin or the author's independence, the joint research is also independent
individual's independence claim group's independence

The flaw?
- Individual independence is NOT similar to joint research independence

The same flaw applies to D. Why?
Reliability of the consortium is assumed same as the reliability of the members of the consortium

Why are others incorrect?
A. A project is likely award-winning because the person is working a different product line at the same award-winning company. Different product lines do not use the same flaw.
B. separate model -> not use the same flaw
C. The pattern focuses on expecting one person is part of the team, not a person's value/trait = a team trait
E. not a flaw. It's correct logic. One person part of the group did x, so the person did x.

Bunuel

A leading tech journal recently praised the joint research panel assembled by NVIDIA, calling its twelve-engineer task force “remarkably rigorous and unbiased” in its evaluation of emerging AI safety standards. Since Dr. Lin served on that task force, corporate clients adopting her independent AI-audit reports can confidently expect the same level of rigor and impartiality.

Which of the following exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that in the passage?

A. A team at a robotics company won an award for designing a drone-navigation module. Since Caleb worked on a different product line at the same company, his new project is also likely award-winning.

B. An open-source contributor helped build a widely trusted machine-learning benchmark suite. Since he tested a separate model last year, that model must also represent industry-standard quality.

C. The AI ethics division at Priya’s university is widely respected for its rigorous verification methods. Since Priya recently published a rigorous verification review, she is likely one of the contributors to the division’s strong reputation.

D. A multi-institutional consortium produced a highly reliable dataset for autonomous-vehicle training. Since Dr. Ahmadi was a member of that consortium, her solo data-labeling work for a different project will be just as reliable.

E. A group of analysts at a cloud-security firm unanimously voted to support a shift to zero-trust architecture. Since Jordan is one of those analysts, she also supports a transition to zero-trust practices.

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

gemministorm

Joined: 26 May 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 143

Own Kudos:

111

[1]

Given Kudos: 57

GMAT Focus 1: 565 Q82 V79 DI73 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 605 Q84 V83 DI73 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 2: 605 Q84 V83 DI73 Verified score

Posts: 143

Kudos: 111

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 02:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

main argument: group praised for being rigorous and unbiased. a person's solo work who is part of that group will also be rigorous and unbiased.

A -> 'different product line' -- no
B -> build as group. tested a separate -- no
C -> Priya's university but is Priya part of the group? -- no
D -> group -> solo -- yes
E -> group supports and the individual also supports -- no

gchandana

Joined: 16 May 2024

Last visit: 30 Apr 2026

Posts: 194

Own Kudos:

142

[1]

Given Kudos: 170

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 194

Kudos: 142

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 03:02

Kudos

Bookmarks

The reasoning: A team did some good work in one field or project. And since a person was part of that team, he/she will also be good at some other project/task/field.

A. Caleb worked on a different product line than the one that won an award. So not similar reasoning.
B. We don't know if the machine-learning benchmark suite is industry-standard quality.
C. We don't know if Priya is part of the AI ethics division here.
D. Yes, this is correct. Dr. Ahmadi was part of a team that did some good work in one project; his work on a different project will be just as reliable. This is in the same line as the one given in the argument.
E. This doesn't say that Jordan would support something else. There is no flaw here in the first place.

Option D.

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

Gmat860sanskar

Joined: 05 May 2023

Last visit: 30 Apr 2026

Posts: 212

Own Kudos:

113

[1]

Given Kudos: 79

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 212

Kudos: 113

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 03:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

Stimulus :

Logic here : This is faulty transfer of group attribute to individual separate work without justification

Let's look at option here :

A : No, this is less precise and weaker option --- Incorrect

B : This is close, but it is ambiguous -- Incorrect

C : This reverse the logic -- Incorrect

D : Yes this is exactly the logic which is used in main stimulus --- Correct

E : No, unanimously means all are on same side, so different logic is used here --- Incorrect

Answer - D

Kinshook

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Jun 2019

Last visit: 30 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,990

Own Kudos:

5,864

[1]

Given Kudos: 163

Location: India

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Engineering (Transportation)

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 5,990

Kudos: 5,864

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 03:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

A leading tech journal recently praised the joint research panel assembled by NVIDIA, calling its twelve-engineer task force " remarkably rigorous and unbiased" in its evaluation of emerging AI safety standards.
Since Dr Lin served on that task force, corporate clients adopting her independent AI-audit reports can confidently expect the same level of rigor and impartiality.

Objective: Find flawed reasoning similar to that in the passage

Pre-thinking:
The flaw in the reasoning is that if a group performs well in a certain task and an individual who is part of the group performs another task then same quality is the expected outcome.

Options:

A. Here a team at a robotics company won an award for designing a drone-navigation module and an individual Caleb who worked on a different product line and was not part of the team but his output is also expected to be award-winning. Incorrect

B. There is a difference in timing and type of work (building vs testing) . Incorrect

C. The flawed reasoning is about group reputation first and same quality expectation from an individual who is part of the group. The statement is more about individual contribution first and then group reputation based on individual's reputation. Incorrect

D. A multi-institutional consortium produced a highly reliable data-set for autonomous-vehicle training. Since Dr Ahmadi was part of the consortium, the same quality is expected from her work. Similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument. Correct

E. There is a unanimous voting for a purpose. Since an individual was part of the group, she also votes in support. There is no independent work by the individual. Incorrect.

IMO D

Brindac2

Joined: 14 Apr 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 27

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 112

Location: United Arab Emirates

Concentration: Finance, Technology

GMAT Focus 1: 535 Q72 V82 DI75 Verified score

WE:Management Consulting (Accounting)

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 535 Q72 V82 DI75 Verified score

Posts: 27

Kudos: 16

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 04:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question story :
12 engineer task force was superb for AI safety standards.
So Dr. Lin will be superb for AI audit report.
Since Dr Lin was part of 12.

A. Team won award for A. Caleb worked in different team same company. Caleb will be good. Wrong.

B. OS contributer tested 1 model. Great. He tests another model. Should be great. Wrong.

C. AI ethics division at P Uni. Great. P published something. So P must be in division. Nope. Wrong.

D. Consortium produced good dataset. Dr. Ahmadi was part of it. So, his independent work for labelling will be good. Match. Correct

E. Group voted on a matter. Jordan was in that group so he supports that matter. Wrong.

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

redandme21

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 97

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 97

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 04:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

The flaw is that the praise was for the collective work of the task force, not necessarily for each member's solo projects.

A No similar, because Caleb didn't work on the winning team at all.

B "He tested a separate model last year" might be before or after the group project. Not as good as D.

C The inference is inverted. Individual's work is used to infer she contributed to group's reputation.

D Correct. This is exactly the same flaw: group's reliability implies individual member's independent, unrelated work has same reliability.

E This is not assuming her separate work has a property because of group property. It's just saying she shares the group's stated position.

IMO D

kapoora10

Joined: 13 Jul 2024

Last visit: 12 Apr 2026

Posts: 109

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Concentration: Real Estate, Sustainability

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q88 V74 DI84 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 8.03

WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Management)

Products:

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 109

Kudos: 95

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 04:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

Assessing each statement=>

A=> Transfers success across projects within company and not from groups to individuals. Eliminate.
B=> Relationship is not strictly group => individual. Eliminate.
C=> Reverse. Eliminate.
D=> Mirrors the flow: Praised group output and individual was a member/ conclusion about individual's separate work. keep for now.
E=> Valid inference = group unanimously voted and she must support the group. Eliminate.

Final Answer => D

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

Flaw: Attributing a property of the group to an individual's separate, independent work outside the group context.

A Caleb wasn't part of the award-winning group, so the reasoning is not similar.

B It has a similar flaw of transferring quality from one project to another, but the reasoning here isn't as closely related to group to individual transfer as in the passage.

C It's not similar because from individual's work it infers she's part of group's reputation.

D Right answer. This reasoning wrongly assumes the quality of individual work based on the reputation of the group.

E Not flawed. If group voted unanimously, each member does support it.

Answer D

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument transfers a quality of a group's collective work to an individual's separate work, without evidence that the individual's independent work shares the same conditions that made the group work strong.

A This relies on company association, not membership in the praised group itself.

B This confuses different types of work (contributor vs tester), but it doesn't clearly hinge on group excellence being transferred to separate individual work.

C This deduces something about the group from an individual's work, which is the opposite direction of the flaw.

D It commits the same error of assuming that excellence achieved by a group automatically carries over to an individual's separate work. Correct answer.

E This is not a flawed inference, as it relies on the assumption that unanimous group decisions reflect the individual preferences of the group members.

The answer is D

firefox300

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

Argument: Assuming a characteristic of the entire team automatically applies to each member's solo, unrelated projects.

A This says that, being in the same company (not in the same award winning group), same team's success transfers to unrelated work. No similar.

B No similar, because the two projects might differ in context or execution.

C Reversed logic. From individual work, it infers she contributed to group reputation.

D CORRECT. Same flaw: assuming group's reliability applies to an individual's separate, independent work.

E No flaw. If all voted for it, each member supports it.

The correct answer is D

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 134

Kudos: 121

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

A leading tech journal recently praised the joint research panel assembled by NVIDIA, calling its twelve-engineer task force “remarkably rigorous and unbiased” in its evaluation of emerging AI safety standards. Since Dr. Lin served on that task force, corporate clients adopting her independent AI-audit reports can confidently expect the same level of rigor and impartiality.

Which of the following exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that in the passage?

A. A team at a robotics company won an award for designing a drone-navigation module. Since Caleb worked on a different product line at the same company, his new project is also likely award-winning. (Same company, but not the same project or collective evaluation standard as in above argument) Wrong

B. An open-source contributor helped build a widely trusted machine-learning benchmark suite. Since he tested a separate model last year, that model must also represent industry-standard quality. (It is about testing a model) Wrong

C. The AI ethics division at Priya’s university is widely respected for its rigorous verification methods. Since Priya recently published a rigorous verification review, she is likely one of the contributors to the division’s strong reputation. (This uses individual work to infer group reputation) Wrong

D. A multi-institutional consortium produced a highly reliable dataset for autonomous-vehicle training. Since Dr. Ahmadi was a member of that consortium, her solo data-labeling work for a different project will be just as reliable. (A multi-institutional consortium produced a highly reliable dataset which is a group achievement. And the conclusion assumes that Dr. Ahmadi’s solo data-labeling work on a different project will be just as reliable only bcoz she was a part of that consortium) Correct

E. A group of analysts at a cloud-security firm unanimously voted to support a shift to zero-trust architecture. Since Jordan is one of those analysts, she also supports a transition to zero-trust practices. (This is about individual opinion) Wrong

D

vasu1104

Joined: 10 Feb 2023

Last visit: 30 Apr 2026

Posts: 411

Own Kudos:

245

[1]

Given Kudos: 666

Location: Canada

Products:

Posts: 411

Kudos: 245

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

tech journal praised research panel assembled by NVIDIA and calls it task force rigorous and unbiased in evaluating ai safety standards.
Dr lin served on the task force.
conclusion= corporate clients who adopted lin's independent reports can confidently expect the same level of rigour and impartiality.

A. in passage lin was member of task force and had her own independent reports. here character worked on different product doesnt align with given info.
B. this talks about building suite to him testing separate model last year to that model being industry level standard. off the direction
C. this talks about likelihood of priya being in that division.
D. perfect. group produced highly reliable dataset- ahmed was on group- his independent work will be as relaible.
E. this talks about she supporting the transition. no match.

ans D

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

Dereno

Joined: 22 May 2020

Last visit: 30 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,398

Own Kudos:

1,374

[1]

Given Kudos: 425

Products:

Posts: 1,398

Kudos: 1,374

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 06:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

This passage is about a leading tech journals praises about the joint research panel assembled by NVIDIA - by a 12 member Taskforce, which was unbiased & rigorous. The research is about emerging AI safety standards.

The reason cited was : Since Dr. Lin was a member in that panel, who worked in a Taskforce known for its rigor and impartiality. The Dr. Lin is also known to posses such traits.

The flaw here is assuming a group trait as the wholistic trait and character of an individual.

A) This is not a flaw, as it mentions a team wining award. And this expresses a view that Caleb working at a different unit might also get awards. This assumes, the company has high standards on quality and performances.

B) Just because a product is tested doesn’t mean it has met the standards. More over, the flaw in context is a generalised view is applied to a specific case. Hence, Wrong.

C) This mixes the system in place, known for its higher standards with the test product set. The flaw is considering the product to have contributed to the systems high standards. Hence, Wrong.

D) This is the answer, since a consortium has developed a reliable system. Doesn’t necessarily mean, the individuals are capable of generating reliable outcomes. Synergies output is different from an individual output. Hence, correct.

E) An unanimous voting in favour of a particular aspect means all parties involved in the voting are supporting the cause. This is out of context. Hence, Wrong.

Option D

canopyinthecity

Joined: 12 Jul 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 19

Products:

Posts: 92

Kudos: 61

25 Dec 2025, 06:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) No. Talking about different product line.
(B) No. Comparing with Last year.
(C) No. Reverse to what we are looking.
(D) Yes. Matches the pattern. A group is praised. An individual is part of the group. Her independent work is assumed to have the same quality. (E) No. Talking about supporting something.

adityamntr

Joined: 15 Jul 2023

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 111

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27

Posts: 111

Kudos: 81

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 06:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

A) this is differnet as caleb wokred on differnt prodcut line, while dr Lin is wokring on same
B)not paralell wit a team wokring on project
C) priya is not part of the team, also this is not in paraelle with the statement.
D) this is correct, maybe team work is important factor, and wokring solo might not bring out that
E) this is not paralell to the above statement, also no creditbility judgement here

Answer is D

prepapr

Joined: 06 Jan 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 6

GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q85 V80 DI77 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q85 V80 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 92

Kudos: 82

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 06:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

Context: A leading tech journal praised a joint research panel assembled by NVIDIA, calling its twelve engineer task force remarkably rigorous and unbiased in evaluating AI safety standards
Conclusion: Corporate clients can expect Dr Lin's independent AI audit reports to show same rigor and impartiality
Logical gap: The quality attributed to a group is automatically matched with an individual member of the group acting independently

Evaluating options

A) This transfers success from one team to an unrelated project, not about an indivual member
B) Focus on product quality, not personal rigor
C) This is not claiming that her independent work match group quality
D) This is correct. Group is praised for quality. Conclusion transfers group reliability to individual's independent work. Same logical flaw as the argument
E) Since the group voted uninanimously, there is no inherent flaw in the reasoning.

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

arnab24

Joined: 16 Jan 2024

Last visit: 25 Feb 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Schools: ISB '26

GPA: 8.80

Schools: ISB '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 81

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 06:11

Kudos

Bookmarks

The flaw in the reasoning of the argument is since Li was member of 12 engineer team for successfully evaluating AI safety standards , it is confidently expected from Li that her independent AI-audit reports expect same level of rigor and impartiality. This is flawed since we are not sure whether she truly contributed in that. It may be some other factor for which team received that praise. We need to find similar flaw :

(A) No It's incorrect , as Caleb was not part of winning team , and not representing similar flaw.
(B) It's incorrect , as similar flaw is not established.
(C) It's incorrect as similar flaw is not established.
(D) It's correct , since it resembles in a same way that Dr. Ahmadi was part of consortium and it is expected from her that her individual work for different project will be as reliable.
(E) It's incorrect as similar flaw is not established.

So correct answer is D

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

pappal

Joined: 24 Nov 2022

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 322

Own Kudos:

109

[1]

Given Kudos: 100

Products:

Posts: 322

Kudos: 109

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 07:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

flaw in the reasoning:: An expertise of a team in 'X', doesn't mean that any one member of that team will deliver the same rigor and impartiality in 'X'.
A. Caleb was not even the part of the team that won award--out
B. compares one person's works in different projects---out
C. Just discusses on one persons outstanding ability as the reason for her to be one of the main contributors for the team's reputation--out
E. group voted for 'X' , J was the part of the team so she also supports 'X'-- if D choice were not available this one would have been the best choice.
D. correct since follows the same flaw mentioned above .

MANASH94

Joined: 25 Jun 2025

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 89

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Location: India

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72 Verified score

GPA: 2.9

Products:

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72 Verified score

Posts: 89

Kudos: 63

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 07:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

Premise says a respected journal praised a group (NVIDIA’s joint research panel) as rigorous and unbiased. Dr. Lin was a member of that group.
Conclusion is that: Clients can expect Dr. Lin’s independent audit work to have the same rigor and impartiality. The flaw seems to be illegitimately transferring a group-level evaluation to an individual’s separate, solo work in a different context.

Evaluate answer choices
A. Different product line at same company => award-winning - Seems incorrect.
This seems like a different flaw. Company association, not group -> individual transfer.

B. Contributor worked on benchmark, therefore a separate model is high quality Incorrect
-> While this is similar, the flaw here is more about past performance guarantying. Switches from contributor to product quality, different mismatch.

C. Division is respected; therefore Priya must be a contributor.
This is Reverses of the original flaw (affirming the consequent).

D. Consortium produced a reliable dataset; since Dr. Ahmadi was a member, her solo work will be just as reliable. Seems CORRECT
Most similar flaw, group quality -> individual’s independent work.

E. Group voted unanimously, Jordan supports it seems incorrect.
This is a Valid reasoning (member of a unanimous vote).

Answer should be D.

Bunuel