A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple person

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.

IanStewart · Answer

The psychiatrist's argument is, paraphrasing: "I've never seen X, therefore X does not exist". A few of the answer choices have a similar structure, but E is an exact match, so is the closest parallel.

rachnak82 · Answer

Why not option A? Can some one help on reason for this options elimination.

Posted from my mobile device

Sanjay7392 · Answer

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

A- Eliminated because the person makes assumption on the nature of a disease instead of making assumption on its existence (as in the question).

B - Eliminated because assumption is based on other peoples observation instead of his/her own.

C-Eliminated because again nature/effectiveness of a therapy is discussed.

D-Eliminated because it is a prediction on a persons action -not about the existence of something.

E - Properly compares individual's assumption based on his own observation - Correct

IanStewart · Answer

As I said above, some answers are close to being right, and A is one of those. But in A, the doctor still allows for the possibility that colds might sometimes be fatal. The original argument doesn't do that. In the original argument that we're trying to parallel, the psychiatrist says multiple personality disorder does not exist because she has never seen it. The psychiatrist does not say "multiple personality disorder is pretty rare because I've never seen it" (if it said that, A would be a great answer).

ddtDDT · Answer

method: 
use of evidence: no evidence support "A" -> NO "A"
A no evidence support "A" ->  seldom  "A"
B no evidence support "A" ->  probably NO   "A"
C  some  evidence -> (i dont care)
D This is a timeshift flaw of reasoning, not evidence
E finally: no evidence support "A" -> NO "A" --> correct answer

unraveled · 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.

Tough as well as easy at the same time, if someone spots the wording.
Logic wise each of them looks similar but the problem lies in the wording used.

See the highlighted text.

Answer E.

A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple person

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 psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple person

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