A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multi

Question

A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple personality disorder on the grounds that in all her years of clinical practice, she had never encountered one case of this type.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the questionable reasoning cited above?

A. Anton concluded that colds are seldom fatal on the grounds that in all his years of clinical practice, he never had a patient who died of a cold.
B. Lyla said that no one in the area has seen a groundhog and so there are probably no groundhogs in the area.
C. Sauda argued that because therapy rarely had an effect on her patient's type of disorder, therapy was not warranted.
D. Thomas argued that because Natasha has driven her car to work every day since she bought it, she would probably continue to drive her car to work
E. Jerod had never spotted a deer in his area and concluded from this that there are no deer in the area.

anindame · Answer

It is E. E most closely parallels the questionable reasoning

OA please?

gmatprav · Answer

+1 E.

My reasoning is as below. correct me if I am mistaken.

In the question the conclusion is absolute "no such thing as...", so is the premise "never encountered one case...". Also, the observer is the one reaching to a conclusion.

A. Anton concluded that colds are seldom fatal on the grounds that in all his years of clinical practice, he never had a patient who died of a cold.
 The word  seldom  indicates the conclusion is not absolute. - OUT 
B. Lyla said that no one in the area has seen a groundhog and so there are probably no groundhogs in the area.
 Observation is made by other people not the person making the conclusion. 
C. Sauda argued that because therapy rarely had an effect on her patient's type of disorder, therapy was not warranted.
 The word  rarely  again is non-absolute. 
D. Thomas argued that because Natasha has driven her car to work every day since she bought it, she would probably continue to drive her car to work.
 The conclusion is for future "she would probably continue... - incorrect 
E. Jerod had never spotted a deer in his area and concluded from this that there are no deer in the area.
 The words  never  and  "no deer..."  are both absolute hence correct.

samsmalldog · Answer

Here is my view. I chose A A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple personality disorder on the grounds that in all her years of clinical practice, she had never encountered one case of this type. A.Anton concluded that colds are seldom fatal on the grounds that in all his years of clinical practice, he never had a patient who died of a cold. E.Jerod had never spotted a deer in his area and (he)concluded from this that there are no deer in the area. A seems much better than E.If I was wrong,please explain,thanks in advance.

gmatprav · Answer

I am not sure of the answer either. if it were A, the wording would have been more direct "Anton concluded that colds are not fatal because he never had a patient..." instead it uses the word seldom which means "not often". that means Anton Anton does not exclude a minor possibility of fatality. whereas our psychiatrist completely excludes any possibility of multiple personality disorder. hence E for me.

samsmalldog · Answer

I see,hem...see what other guys opinion

ConnectTheDots · Answer

A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple personality disorder on the grounds that in all her years of clinical practice, she had never encountered one case of this type.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the questionable reasoning cited above?

A. Anton concluded that colds are  seldom  fatal on the grounds that in all his years of clinical practice, he never had a patient who died of a cold.
B. Lyla said that no one in the area has seen a groundhog and so there are  probably  no groundhogs in the area.
C. Sauda argued that because therapy  rarely  had an effect on her patient's type of disorder, therapy was not warranted.
D. Thomas argued that because Natasha has driven her car to work every day since she bought it, she would  probably  continue to drive her car to work
E. Jerod had never spotted a deer in his area and concluded from this that there are no deer in the area.

In the premise the psychiatrist says MPD  never  occurs, cause she  never  encountered. 
The psychiatrist is very confident and she never used probability. Only option E maintains this absoluteness, rest all options still consider a chance of non-occurrence.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multi

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