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 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2206:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Let’s dive deep into advanced CR to ace GMAT Focus! Join this webinar to unlock the secrets to conquering Boldface and Paradox questions with expert insights and strategies. Elevate your skills and boost your GMAT Verbal Score now!
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 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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.
mojorising800
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Last visit: 05 Mar 2012
Posts: 111
Given Kudos: 7
Status:Its Wow or Never
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Tepper '14 Goizueta '14 ISB Tippie Kelley '14 Georgia Tech Mays Katz Kenan-Flagler '14 Schulich Smith '15
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Schools: Tepper '14 Goizueta '14 ISB Tippie Kelley '14 Georgia Tech Mays Katz Kenan-Flagler '14 Schulich Smith '15
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
Posts: 111
Updated on: 21 Jan 2019, 07:03
Originally posted by mojorising800 on 21 Jan 2010, 11:04.
Last edited by Bunuel on 21 Jan 2019, 07:03, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 21 Jan 2019, 07:03, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
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:
67% (02:07) correct
33%
(02:33)
wrong
based on 718
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A psychologist is treating a patient with multiple personality disorder. One of the patient’s personalities claims to be a blind Civil War veteran. When exhibiting this personality, the patient responds in the affirmative when asked, only in a written format, whether he is blind. None of the patient’s other personalities claims to be blind. The psychologist concluded that the patient’s personality is fragmented, and that the veteran personality claims to be blind, while another personality responds to the written question.
Asking which of the following questions can reveal a flaw in the psychologist’s explanation?
A. Why does the personality that answers the written question not answer “No” ?
B. Why does the psychologist feel compelled to explain the patient’s responses?
C. Why doesn’t another of the patient’s personalities convince the veteran personality that he can see?
D. Why does the veteran personality claim to be blind, but none of the other personalities make this claim?
E. Why don’t all the patient’s personalities claim to be blind?
Asking which of the following questions can reveal a flaw in the psychologist’s explanation?
A. Why does the personality that answers the written question not answer “No” ?
B. Why does the psychologist feel compelled to explain the patient’s responses?
C. Why doesn’t another of the patient’s personalities convince the veteran personality that he can see?
D. Why does the veteran personality claim to be blind, but none of the other personalities make this claim?
E. Why don’t all the patient’s personalities claim to be blind?
26 Jan 2010, 20:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Kaplan has a brand new course--so this seems like a great opportunity to test out our new Kaplan method!
Step 1: Identify the question type.
The word "Flaw" makes it clear what we're dealing with a flaw question (duh!). That means we can expect the standard argument elements of Evidence, Conclusion, and Assumption; however, we can expect that the assumption will be conspicuously weak.
Step 2: Untangle the stimulus.
Generally, the best place to begin untangling is with the conclusion. Fortunately, the word "concluded" identifies that for us; the psychologist's conclusion is that a 'veteran' thinks its blind while another personality responds to questions.
Why does the author think so? Because this so-called blind personality is responding to written questions.
So what's the gap between this stated evidence and the psychologists ultimate conclusion? Well, according to the doctor someone else is answering the questions--so why is that someone else answering the questions for the veteran?
Step 3: Predict an answer
The hole here is the question of why one personality is answer on the behalf of the blind personality. So, we can predict that we will look for an answer that says, "Why isn't the personality that's reading and writing just answering for itself?"
Step 4: Evaluate the choices.
(A) matches that prediction perfectly.
Step 1: Identify the question type.
The word "Flaw" makes it clear what we're dealing with a flaw question (duh!). That means we can expect the standard argument elements of Evidence, Conclusion, and Assumption; however, we can expect that the assumption will be conspicuously weak.
Step 2: Untangle the stimulus.
Generally, the best place to begin untangling is with the conclusion. Fortunately, the word "concluded" identifies that for us; the psychologist's conclusion is that a 'veteran' thinks its blind while another personality responds to questions.
Why does the author think so? Because this so-called blind personality is responding to written questions.
So what's the gap between this stated evidence and the psychologists ultimate conclusion? Well, according to the doctor someone else is answering the questions--so why is that someone else answering the questions for the veteran?
Step 3: Predict an answer
The hole here is the question of why one personality is answer on the behalf of the blind personality. So, we can predict that we will look for an answer that says, "Why isn't the personality that's reading and writing just answering for itself?"
Step 4: Evaluate the choices.
(A) matches that prediction perfectly.
General Discussion
21 Jan 2010, 13:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
mojorising800
Questions like this are certainly the toughest. Typically in an Evaluate the Argument question, providing contradicting answers to each of the questions in the answer options should impact the conclusion of the given stimulus. In that sense, I see that Option D could possibly change the conclusion that the patient's personality is fragmented.
My Take, option D. what is the OA?
