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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Nov 2010, 17:58
1
12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
45% (medium)
Question Stats:
60% (01:18) correct 40% (01:26) wrong based on 551 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective was important, commented: “Well, it sort of commands the valley, so it would be important in a conventional war. But this isn’t a conventional war, so I guess it means nothing.”
The speaker’s conclusion would be most strengthened if it were true that
A. the speaker is skilled in conventional warfare
B. commanding a valley is important in unconventional wars
C. commanding the valley is an objective in the war under discussion
D. this is an unconventional war
E. whatever is important in a conventional war is unimportant in an unconventional war
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Nov 2010, 09:35
7
3
shrive555 wrote:
A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective was important, commented: “Well, it sort of commands the valley, so it would be important in a conventional war. But this isn’t a conventional war, so I guess it means nothing.”
The speaker’s conclusion would be most strengthened if it were true that
the speaker is skilled in conventional warfare commanding a valley is important in unconventional wars commanding the valley is an objective in the war under discussion this is an unconventional war whatever is important in a conventional war is unimportant in an unconventional war
Look at his train of thought: Premises: Commands the valley, so important in conventional war. This is not conventional war.
Conclusion: So not important.
This is not a logical conclusion, right? Something that is important in conventional war could also be important in an unconventional one. What can I do to strengthen this conclusion. Is there a missing premise, which, if added could make this argument logical? If I were to add a premise here 'what is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one', would the conclusion become valid?
See again: Premises: -Commands the valley, so important in conventional war. -This is not conventional war. -What is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one
Conclusion: So not important.
Now it is a valid conclusion. So the argument can be strengthened by adding this premise, this new information. Hence, answer is (E).
_________________
Karishma Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Nov 2010, 02:30
IMO E _________________
Regards, Invincible... "The way to succeed is to double your error rate." "Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jul 2016, 04:14
strengthen is nothing but a type of assumption support the link between premise and conclusion option E is a straightforward choice as provides the basic assumption on which the underlying argument is based. If we negate this statement we can see that the conclusion clearly falls apart Correct answer - E
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Sep 2018, 01:41
VeritasKarishma wrote:
shrive555 wrote:
A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective was important, commented: “Well, it sort of commands the valley, so it would be important in a conventional war. But this isn’t a conventional war, so I guess it means nothing.”
The speaker’s conclusion would be most strengthened if it were true that
the speaker is skilled in conventional warfare commanding a valley is important in unconventional wars commanding the valley is an objective in the war under discussion this is an unconventional war whatever is important in a conventional war is unimportant in an unconventional war
Look at his train of thought: Premises: Commands the valley, so important in conventional war. This is not conventional war.
Conclusion: So not important.
This is not a logical conclusion, right? Something that is important in conventional war could also be important in an unconventional one. What can I do to strengthen this conclusion. Is there a missing premise, which, if added could make this argument logical? If I were to add a premise here 'what is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one', would the conclusion become valid?
See again: Premises: -Commands the valley, so important in conventional war. -This is not conventional war. -What is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one
Conclusion: So not important.
Now it is a valid conclusion. So the argument can be strengthened by adding this premise, this new information. Hence, answer is (E).
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Sep 2018, 04:39
Anoushka1995 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
shrive555 wrote:
A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective was important, commented: “Well, it sort of commands the valley, so it would be important in a conventional war. But this isn’t a conventional war, so I guess it means nothing.”
The speaker’s conclusion would be most strengthened if it were true that
the speaker is skilled in conventional warfare commanding a valley is important in unconventional wars commanding the valley is an objective in the war under discussion this is an unconventional war whatever is important in a conventional war is unimportant in an unconventional war
Look at his train of thought: Premises: Commands the valley, so important in conventional war. This is not conventional war.
Conclusion: So not important.
This is not a logical conclusion, right? Something that is important in conventional war could also be important in an unconventional one. What can I do to strengthen this conclusion. Is there a missing premise, which, if added could make this argument logical? If I were to add a premise here 'what is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one', would the conclusion become valid?
See again: Premises: -Commands the valley, so important in conventional war. -This is not conventional war. -What is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one
Conclusion: So not important.
Now it is a valid conclusion. So the argument can be strengthened by adding this premise, this new information. Hence, answer is (E).
(D) is already given in the argument (this is an unconventional war). Hence adding it again will have no impact on the argument/conclusion.
_________________
Karishma Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Sep 2018, 05:22
E is clear cut answer here. If we negate Option E our conclusion shall fall apart. Also Option D is an inference answer choice Anoushka1995 _________________
Never Settle for something less than what you deserve...........
I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously Wont give up till i hit a 700+
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Sep 2018, 06:34
This question might be kind of silly but where is it mentioned that it's an unconventional war? It could also mean that there is no war at all. That is the reason that I did not chose E. I chose C instead which says "C. commanding the valley is an objective in the war under discussion ". Can someone please explain?
gmatclubot
Re: A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective &nbs
[#permalink]
08 Sep 2018, 06:34
close
60% (01:18) correct 
