Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 17:35 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 17:35
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
655-705 Level|   Logical Flaw|         
User avatar
joshnsit
User avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Last visit: 19 Oct 2017
Posts: 238
Own Kudos:
1,390
 [18]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Schools: IIMB (A) IIMA  (I) IIMC  (A)
Schools: IIMB (A) IIMA  (I) IIMC  (A)
Posts: 238
Kudos: 1,390
 [18]
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 28 Oct 2013, 10:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
18
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (02:03) correct 38% (02:04) wrong based on 769 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. Thus, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in reasoning in the passage?


(A) attempting to justify a rule of conduct on the grounds that it confers benefits on all of the parties involved

(B) concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition

(C) speaking only in abstract terms about matters that involve contingencies and that must be judged on a case-by-case basis

(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals

(E) treating an issue that requires resolution through political processes as if it were merely a matter of opinion
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,531
 [11]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,531
 [11]
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 28 Oct 2013, 15:25
11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
joshnsit
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. Thus, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in reasoning in the passage?
(A) attempting to justify a rule of conduct on the grounds that it confers benefits on all of the parties involved
(B) concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition
(C) speaking only in abstract terms about matters that involve contingencies and that must be judged on a case-by-case basis
(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals
(E) treating an issue that requires resolution through political processes as if it were merely a matter of opinion

Plz explain your answer for sure...
OA to follow...
Show more
Dear joshnsit,
This is tagged as a Kaplan question, but I believe this is an LSAT question. LSAT reasoning questions are very tricky!

Here, we first are given the premise --- when folks "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits", then there's a contract (explicit or implicit). OK, so far, so good.

Then, we get the example of the artist who gets mega-bucks from the government. OK, the artist has received money, so thereby has received a benefit. Is this a relationship in which the parties "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits"? That's quite unclear.

You see, when the government issues public funds to a contractor to, for example, pave a highway or build a bridge, then there is something tangible in the public space that results from this expenditure of public money, and in theory, say, the bridge could provide the same benefit (passage over a river) to any and all citizens. The contractor benefits from public money, and the public benefits from the bridge --- that's "a reciprocal transfer of benefits." An artist creates art, and then individuals have their own private experience ---- some people may get nothing from any art, and others will be moved by the art. The experience of art is something very private and personal, how I feel about this work of art ---- in that sense, its quite unlike the example of the bridge.

Is the reason the government or private citizens support the arts to provide a benefit? Does art "benefit" people? What is would be the "benefit" that art provides? These are really subtle philosophical questions, but the point is, it's not at all clear that the relationship of artist-public is a relationship that both parties entered expecting a "reciprocal transfer of benefits". It doesn't fit the definition of "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", certainly not in the same way as if the government asked a contractor to build something tangible and practical.

The answer that directly addresses this issue is (B), which I believe is the OA. The artist-public relationship, whatever it may be, does not neatly fit a relationship predicated on "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", and therefore the contract which the premise discusses is not relevant to the artist.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
General Discussion
avatar
ucb2k7
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2017
Last visit: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
7
 [1]
Given Kudos: 182
Posts: 19
Kudos: 7
 [1]
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 18 Feb 2018, 05:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
joshnsit
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. Thus, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in reasoning in the passage?
(A) attempting to justify a rule of conduct on the grounds that it confers benefits on all of the parties involved
(B) concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition
(C) speaking only in abstract terms about matters that involve contingencies and that must be judged on a case-by-case basis
(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals
(E) treating an issue that requires resolution through political processes as if it were merely a matter of opinion

Plz explain your answer for sure...
OA to follow...
Dear joshnsit,
This is tagged as a Kaplan question, but I believe this is an LSAT question. LSAT reasoning questions are very tricky!

Here, we first are given the premise --- when folks "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits", then there's a contract (explicit or implicit). OK, so far, so good.

Then, we get the example of the artist who gets mega-bucks from the government. OK, the artist has received money, so thereby has received a benefit. Is this a relationship in which the parties "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits"? That's quite unclear.

You see, when the government issues public funds to a contractor to, for example, pave a highway or build a bridge, then there is something tangible in the public space that results from this expenditure of public money, and in theory, say, the bridge could provide the same benefit (passage over a river) to any and all citizens. The contractor benefits from public money, and the public benefits from the bridge --- that's "a reciprocal transfer of benefits." An artist creates art, and then individuals have their own private experience ---- some people may get nothing from any art, and others will be moved by the art. The experience of art is something very private and personal, how I feel about this work of art ---- in that sense, its quite unlike the example of the bridge.

Is the reason the government or private citizens support the arts to provide a benefit? Does art "benefit" people? What is would be the "benefit" that art provides? These are really subtle philosophical questions, but the point is, it's not at all clear that the relationship of artist-public is a relationship that both parties entered expecting a "reciprocal transfer of benefits". It doesn't fit the definition of "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", certainly not in the same way as if the government asked a contractor to build something tangible and practical.

The answer that directly addresses this issue is (B), which I believe is the OA. The artist-public relationship, whatever it may be, does not neatly fit a relationship predicated on "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", and therefore the contract which the premise discusses is not relevant to the artist.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi @mikemcgarry,

Understood your explanation well. Could you please explain as to why (D) is irrelevant as an answer choice. (D) seems pretty confusing in its text!

Thanks,

ucb2k7
User avatar
MagooshExpert
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Last visit: 15 Jan 2020
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
436
Given Kudos: 20
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 231
Kudos: 436
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 21 Feb 2018, 19:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ucb2k7

Hi @mikemcgarry,

Understood your explanation well. Could you please explain as to why (D) is irrelevant as an answer choice. (D) seems pretty confusing in its text!

Thanks,

ucb2k7
Show more

Hi ucb2k7!

I can jump in for Mike here :-)

Choice (D) is definitely pretty confusing! Let's take a look:

(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals

Let's break this down. First of all, we see some repeated words: "mental or emotional". The first part is talking about "mental or emotional activity" and the second part mentions "mental or emotional states". These seem pretty similar. Keeping that in mind, we can see that there is a comparison here between individuals and groups of individuals. (D) is basically saying that the fallacy is confusing actions/states of individuals vs. actions/states of groups. It's saying that the argument fails to differentiate between actions taken by an individual and actions taken by a group. The question is, is that true?

The argument talks about "parties". It seems pretty clear that a "party" can refer to either an individual (the artist), or a group of people (the public). So if a contract is between two parties, it shouldn't really matter whether we're talking about individuals or groups. There isn't any indication that an individual will have a different "mental or emotional state" than a group, or vice versa. So we can conclude that (D) doesn't really apply here.

Hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn
avatar
Rishbha
avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2019
Last visit: 18 Dec 2020
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
4
 [1]
Given Kudos: 68
Posts: 12
Kudos: 4
 [1]
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 30 Oct 2019, 00:55
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
joshnsit
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. Thus, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in reasoning in the passage?
(A) attempting to justify a rule of conduct on the grounds that it confers benefits on all of the parties involved
(B) concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition
(C) speaking only in abstract terms about matters that involve contingencies and that must be judged on a case-by-case basis
(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals
(E) treating an issue that requires resolution through political processes as if it were merely a matter of opinion

Plz explain your answer for sure...
OA to follow...
Dear joshnsit,
This is tagged as a Kaplan question, but I believe this is an LSAT question. LSAT reasoning questions are very tricky!

Here, we first are given the premise --- when folks "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits", then there's a contract (explicit or implicit). OK, so far, so good.

Then, we get the example of the artist who gets mega-bucks from the government. OK, the artist has received money, so thereby has received a benefit. Is this a relationship in which the parties "engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits"? That's quite unclear.

You see, when the government issues public funds to a contractor to, for example, pave a highway or build a bridge, then there is something tangible in the public space that results from this expenditure of public money, and in theory, say, the bridge could provide the same benefit (passage over a river) to any and all citizens. The contractor benefits from public money, and the public benefits from the bridge --- that's "a reciprocal transfer of benefits." An artist creates art, and then individuals have their own private experience ---- some people may get nothing from any art, and others will be moved by the art. The experience of art is something very private and personal, how I feel about this work of art ---- in that sense, its quite unlike the example of the bridge.

Is the reason the government or private citizens support the arts to provide a benefit? Does art "benefit" people? What is would be the "benefit" that art provides? These are really subtle philosophical questions, but the point is, it's not at all clear that the relationship of artist-public is a relationship that both parties entered expecting a "reciprocal transfer of benefits". It doesn't fit the definition of "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", certainly not in the same way as if the government asked a contractor to build something tangible and practical.

The answer that directly addresses this issue is (B), which I believe is the OA. The artist-public relationship, whatever it may be, does not neatly fit a relationship predicated on "a reciprocal transfer of benefits", and therefore the contract which the premise discusses is not relevant to the artist.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more


Hello Mike,

Thank you for the explanation. Can you please help me understand why option A is wrong?

Regards,
Rishbha
User avatar
Jks3000
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2018
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 173
Own Kudos:
77
 [1]
Given Kudos: 63
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Schools: Fuqua '24 McCombs '24 NTU NUS Kellogg '24
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Fuqua '24 McCombs '24 NTU NUS Kellogg '24
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
Posts: 173
Kudos: 77
 [1]
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 27 Jan 2021, 20:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
BOTH parties are not involved. Only single transfer is there.
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 26 Feb 2021, 16:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I got this one based on intution and POE more than anything else. The other choices are just pure blasphemy.

A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. Thus, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in reasoning in the passage?


(A) attempting to justify a rule of conduct on the grounds that it confers benefits on all of the parties involved X

(B) concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition CORRECT

(C) speaking only in abstract terms about matters that involve contingencies and that must be judged on a case-by-case basis X

(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals X

(E) treating an issue that requires resolution through political processes as if it were merely a matter of opinion X
User avatar
ashutosh_73
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
1,635
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,635
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 20 Aug 2023, 09:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
joshnsit
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. Thus, in accepting support from public funds, an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in reasoning in the passage?


(A) attempting to justify a rule of conduct on the grounds that it confers benefits on all of the parties involved

(B) concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition

(C) speaking only in abstract terms about matters that involve contingencies and that must be judged on a case-by-case basis

(D) confusing the type of mental or emotional activity in which an individual can engage with the mental or emotional states that can characterize groups of individuals

(E) treating an issue that requires resolution through political processes as if it were merely a matter of opinion
Show more




In a conditional sentence, ''when'' suggests a sufficient condition:
As per the stimulus: a contract exists when 2 parties engage with each other for both parties to transfer benefits.
Hence:

2 parties engage with each other for both parties to transfer benefits ---> Contract exists

Conclusion: an artist creates at least an unexpressed contract between himself or herself and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from the artist's work

But in conclusion, the sufficient condition has not been stated. Option B highlights this issue, hence the ans.
User avatar
Paras96
User avatar
Joined: 11 Sep 2022
Last visit: 30 Dec 2023
Posts: 460
Own Kudos:
321
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Paras: Bhawsar
GMAT 1: 590 Q47 V24
GMAT 2: 580 Q49 V21
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.2
WE:Project Management (Other)
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V35
Posts: 460
Kudos: 321
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 20 Aug 2023, 10:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
option (B): "concluding that a definition is fully applicable to a situation when it is known only that the situation conforms partially to that definition."

The passage assumes that because artists receive public support, there is an unexpressed contract between them and the public, and the public can rightly expect to benefit from their work. However, this conclusion is based on a partial conformity to the definition of a contract, and it does not consider the specific terms and conditions of each situation, which may vary widely
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,835
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,835
Kudos: 986
A contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when two parties 04 May 2025, 06:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts