A building inspector has been accused of ignoring serious structural

Question

A building inspector has been accused of ignoring serious structural defects on a building. Although the records have been lost and the building has since been demolished, his inspections of more recent buildings have been reviewed and found to be flawless. Therefore, the accusation should be dismissed.

Which one of the following contains questionable reasoning that is similar to that in the argument above?

(A) A computer scientist was accused of spreading a computer virus to several large computers, but the charge should be dismissed since the hard drives of those computers have been erased and no record of his malfeasance exists. Also, since then, his work has been untainted by any such actions.

(B) A teacher was accused of allowing several students to pass a course when they actually failed. This accusation should be discussed at length because even though those students went on to be successful in later grades, the teacher may have passed other undeserving students.

(C) Politician A was accused of stealing parts of a speech given by Politician B. This charge is without foundation and should be disregarded because Politician A was not even born when Politician B gave that speech and there exists no recording of the original speech.

(D) A restaurateur is accused of using ingredients past their expiration dates. The accusation seems justified even though there is no evidence of it, because several cases of food poisoning can be linked back to the restaurateur’s place of business.

(E) A financial manager is accused of stealing funds from his clients. The charges should be ignored because even though the records show there has been some malfeasance, the identity of the accuser has not been disclosed.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer: A

STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task. 
This is a Parallel question. This question is asking you to find the answer whose logic most resembles the given statements. That the reasoning is “questionable” is irrelevant to your task of just finding the answer that follows the same logic.

STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind. 
In this case, a building inspector has been accused of a crime, the evidence has been lost or wiped out by an action, and thus, the argument recommends that the accusation be retracted.

STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for. 
Again, that the reasoning is “questionable” is irrelevant to your task of just finding the answer that follows the same logic, questionable or not.

STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice. 
Answer A switches the statements around, giving the recommendation in the second statement, but the logic is essentially the same. The computer scientist has been accused of a crime and the accusation should be dismissed because all evidence of his crime (hard drives, records) has been eliminated. Answer B recommends that the teacher be further investigated and the evidence is still available, so this situation is very different from your inspector’s. Answer C is close but still not the best answer because the lack of evidence described is insufficient. People still may have heard the speech and be familiar with its content. Answer D argues to sustain the accusation that is supportable by some evidence, which is a completely different situation. Answer E argues that the accusation be retracted based on the lack of identity of the accuser rather than any insufficiency of evidence against the financial manager. The correct choice is answer A.

sj296 · Answer

Premise: 1. Building Inspector was accused of ignoring structural issues 
2. Building records have been lost & the building has been demolished
3. Current, inspections are flawless

Conclusion: So, the charges should be dropped.

We have to look for an option wherein somebody is accused of wrongdoing but proof of wrongdoing doesn't exist today, and his work has improved since then. The conclusion says that the charges against accuse should be dropped.

(A) A computer scientist was accused of spreading a computer virus to several large computers, but the charge should be dismissed since the hard drives of those computers have been erased and no record of his malfeasance exists. Also, since then, his work has been untainted by any such actions.

This matches with the reasoning presented in the argument.

(B) A teacher was accused of allowing several students to pass a course when they actually failed. This accusation should be discussed at length because even though those students went on to be successful in later grades, the teacher may have passed other undeserving students.

Here accusation is not dropped.

(C) Politician A was accused of stealing parts of a speech given by Politician B. This charge is without foundation and should be disregarded because Politician A was not even born when Politician B gave that speech and there exists no recording of the original speech.

Though recordings are not there but people may have heard the speech and drafted Politician A's speech accordingly.

(D) A restaurateur is accused of using ingredients past their expiration dates. The accusation seems justified even though there is no evidence of it, because several cases of food poisoning can be linked back to the restaurateur’s place of business.

Here accusation is being justified not dropped.

(E) A financial manager is accused of stealing funds from his clients. The charges should be ignored because even though the records show there has been some malfeasance, the identity of the accuser has not been disclosed.

Here the proof of wrongdoing still exists. Reject it.

IMO OA should be A.

KarishmaB · Answer

Original Argument of the author: Premises: Inspector has been accused of ignoring serious structural defects on a building. The records have been lost and the building has since been demolished His inspections of more recent buildings have been reviewed and found to be flawless. Conclusion: The accusation should be dismissed. We need to find a similar argument. A past alleged misdemeanour, whose records are lost should be dismissed because current actions are flawless. Let’s look at the options. (A) A computer scientist was accused of spreading a computer virus to several large computers, but the charge should be dismissed since the hard drives of those computers have been erased and no record of his malfeasance exists. Also, since then, his work has been untainted by any such actions. This is a similar argument as our original argument. Past alleged misdemeanour of the computer scientist should be dismissed because the computer hard drives are wiped and his current actions are flawless. Correct. (B) A teacher was accused of allowing several students to pass a course when they actually failed. This accusation should be discussed at length because even though those students went on to be successful in later grades, the teacher may have passed other undeserving students. This argument tells us that the misdemeanour must be discussed at length, not dismissed. Hence, this is not similar to our original argument. (C) Politician A was accused of stealing parts of a speech given by Politician B. This charge is without foundation and should be disregarded because Politician A was not even born when Politician B gave that speech and there exists no recording of the original speech. This argument tells us that an alleged misdemeanour should be dismissed because it is absurd, not because the records are wiped clean. It also doesn’t mention anything about current behaviour. Hence, this is not similar to our original argument. (D) A restaurateur is accused of using ingredients past their expiration dates. The accusation seems justified even though there is no evidence of it, because several cases of food poisoning can be linked back to the restaurateur’s place of business. This argument tells us that the accusation is justified. It does not say that it should be dismissed. Hence, this is not similar to our original argument. (E) A financial manager is accused of stealing funds from his clients. The charges should be ignored because even though the records show there has been some malfeasance, the identity of the accuser has not been disclosed. This argument tells us that records exist but do not show the identity of the accuser, the one who accused the financial manager of stealing. This is a different reason that ‘the records do not exist anymore and current actions are flawless.’ Hence, this is not similar to our original argument. Answer (A) Discussion on Mimic Questions: https://youtu.be/dHU17plF2mc

A building inspector has been accused of ignoring serious structural

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A building inspector has been accused of ignoring serious structural

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards