Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
76% (01:35) correct
24%
(01:31)
wrong
based on 183
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
09 Feb 2014, 02:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
It is E. E most closely parallels the questionable reasoning 
OA please?
OA please? 
09 Feb 2014, 03:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
+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.
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.
