It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 13:40

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 277

Kudos [?]: 1151 [1], given: 325

Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Other
GPA: 2.44
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 23:06
1
KUDOS
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (01:28) correct 57% (01:45) wrong based on 379 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics. However, research conducted by an independent laboratory showed that some errors were made during analysis of the new element, and therefore, metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with this element.

The argument above is flawed because it
(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by guerrero25 on 17 Apr 2013, 23:40, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 1151 [1], given: 325

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 208

Kudos [?]: 81 [11], given: 40

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 23:27
11
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
guerrero25 wrote:
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics. However, research conducted by an independent laboratory showed that some errors were made during analysis of the new element, and therefore, metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with this element.

The argument above is flawed because it
(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.

I believe it's A.

If you read it carefully, you'll see that the independent firm found errors in the original firm's analysis... the independent firm didn't actually do their own analysis of the material, all they did was invalidate the original analysis. This means that they cannot say that the CONCLUSION is wrong, only that the PREMISES are flawed.

For example, I could do a study that says that "The sky is blue because giant monkeys painted it that way" You could then do a study that shows that my analysis is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the sky isn't blue or that my conclusion is wrong.

The argument is based off of that - because the analysis is wrong, the conclusion must be wrong too. This is a logical fallacy. Therefore the answer is A.

Kudos [?]: 81 [11], given: 40

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127

Kudos [?]: 3478 [1], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 23:41
1
KUDOS
guerrero25 wrote:
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics. However, research conducted by an independent laboratory showed that some errors were made during analysis of the new element, and therefore, metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with this element.

The argument above is flawed because it
(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.

Premise: the new element can be used to substitute for metals currently used in space electronics
Premise: some errors were made during analysis of the new element
Conclusion: metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with the new element

Failure: "some errors" does not mean further analyses will be wrong.

(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.
Wrong. Out of scope.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.
Wrong. Nothing about the capabilities of the two labs. Out of scope

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.
Correct. see explanation above.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.
Wrong. nothing about whether a conclusion is sufficient or not sufficient.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.
Wrong. The stimulus does not mention that results that have errors are trustworthy.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Last edited by pqhai on 17 Apr 2013, 23:42, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 3478 [1], given: 123

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 277

Kudos [?]: 1151 [0], given: 325

Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Other
GPA: 2.44
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 23:42
dave785 wrote:
guerrero25 wrote:
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics. However, research conducted by an independent laboratory showed that some errors were made during analysis of the new element, and therefore, metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with this element.

The argument above is flawed because it
(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.

I believe it's A.

If you read it carefully, you'll see that the independent firm found errors in the original firm's analysis... the independent firm didn't actually do their own analysis of the material, all they did was invalidate the original analysis. This means that they cannot say that the CONCLUSION is wrong, only that the PREMISES are flawed.

For example, I could do a study that says that "The sky is blue because giant monkeys painted it that way" You could then do a study that shows that my analysis is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the sky isn't blue or that my conclusion is wrong.

The argument is based off of that - because the analysis is wrong, the conclusion must be wrong too. This is a logical fallacy. Therefore the answer is A.

thanks for a solid explanation ! ! .. It's crystal clear now why " A " is correct .

Kudos [?]: 1151 [0], given: 325

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127

Kudos [?]: 3478 [0], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 23:46
dave785 wrote:
guerrero25 wrote:
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics. However, research conducted by an independent laboratory showed that some errors were made during analysis of the new element, and therefore, metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with this element.

The argument above is flawed because it
(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.

I believe it's A.

If you read it carefully, you'll see that the independent firm found errors in the original firm's analysis... the independent firm didn't actually do their own analysis of the material, all they did was invalidate the original analysis. This means that they cannot say that the CONCLUSION is wrong, only that the PREMISES are flawed.

For example, I could do a study that says that "The sky is blue because giant monkeys painted it that way" You could then do a study that shows that my analysis is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the sky isn't blue or that my conclusion is wrong.

The argument is based off of that - because the analysis is wrong, the conclusion must be wrong too. This is a logical fallacy. Therefore the answer is A.

Great explanation, Now I understand the logic. Totally got your ideal.
Thanks!
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Kudos [?]: 3478 [0], given: 123

Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 132

Kudos [?]: 48 [1], given: 3

Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2013, 00:05
1
KUDOS
i somewhere get a feeling that A has not been structured properly to fit as an answer
i agree that proving that analysis is wrong does not prove that conclusion is wrong but A is not hinting on those lines
i feel that A wud have been the answer had the argument been structured as follow :

premise 1 :A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics

premise 2 : however ,a second laboratory is not able to prove the findings of previous analysis

conclusion : hence the the second laboratory concluded that the findings of previous analysis are faulty
now A wud have ideally been the answer .

but given the argument i guess A does not fit the bill

kindly tell us the source of this question

Kudos [?]: 48 [1], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 208

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 40

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2013, 00:32
neha24 wrote:
i somewhere get a feeling that A has not been structured properly to fit as an answer
i agree that proving that analysis is wrong does not prove that conclusion is wrong but A is not hinting on those lines
i feel that A wud have been the answer had the argument been structured as follow :

premise 1 :A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics

premise 2 : however ,a second laboratory is not able to prove the findings of previous analysis

conclusion : hence the the second laboratory concluded that the findings of previous analysis are faulty
now A wud have ideally been the answer .

but given the argument i guess A does not fit the bill

kindly tell us the source of this question

You incorrectly interpreted the second premise.

The second firm found errors in the way the first form performed the analysis. This means we CANNOT assume the second firm did any actual research on the new chemical element. They therefore cannot make any definitive claim on the first firm's conclusion, only on the validity of their conclusion.

In other words, disproving a positive does NOT logically lead to proving a negative. (check out Cartesian logic for more of this kind of stuff)

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 40

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 648 [1], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2013, 13:54
1
KUDOS
Research analysts found something, than someother research companies found errors in the what was intially carried out by the researchers....
Point is the new research did nt put fwd anythn new except the fact that earlier analysts made some mistake...

Hence A must be the answer

Consider kudos If my post helps!!!

Archit

Kudos [?]: 648 [1], given: 70

Intern
Joined: 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 17

Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2013, 05:01
Archit143 wrote:
Research analysts found something, than someother research companies found errors in the what was intially carried out by the researchers....
Point is the new research did nt put fwd anythn new except the fact that earlier analysts made some mistake...

Hence A must be the answer

Consider kudos If my post helps!!!

Archit

I know A is true, but would sb plz let me know why C is wrong??

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 17

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127

Kudos [?]: 3478 [1], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2013, 13:33
1
KUDOS
omraan wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
Research analysts found something, than someother research companies found errors in the what was intially carried out by the researchers....
Point is the new research did nt put fwd anythn new except the fact that earlier analysts made some mistake...

Hence A must be the answer

Consider kudos If my post helps!!!

Archit

I know A is true, but would sb plz let me know why C is wrong??

Hi Omraan. Very good question.

How to attack the question.

This is a flaw of reasoning question, in order to get the correct answer you have to generalize the stimulus to abstract pattern. That makes this kind of question be one of the most difficult types in CR.

I would generalize the stimulus as followings:

A makes a claim that X is true
B found that A has errors
B makes a claim that X is NOT true

The problem here is:
X itself is CORRECT, B, however, found that A (the scientific method) has errors ==> B concludes X is NOT true. That is wrong reasoning. If B wants to prove X is NOT true, B has to find evidences that show X is NOT true, not evidences that show A has errors in its method.

A says: presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.
"Something" = the fact: metals currently used in space electronics can be replaced with this element
"not proved to be true" = the recent analysis does not show the fact is true (the analysis has error)
"then it must be wrong" = the fact that the analysis shows must be wrong.

The research by an independent laboratory only shows the recent analysis has error ==> conclude that the fact "metals currently used in space electronics can be replaced with this element" is wrong ==> Flaw in reasoning.
Hence , A is the correct. answer.

Similar example:
Galileo Galilei discovered that the Earth moves around the Sun.
The Church found that Galileo Galilei had some errors in his method
The Church concluded that "the Earth moves around the Sun" is wrong.

You see the same flaw of reasoning? The fact that "the Earth moves around the Sun" itself is ALWAYS correct.

C is wrong, why?

C says: fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

Please see the logical reasoning below:
A makes claim that X is true
B also makes a claim that X is not true
B concludes that X is not true.

==> Flaw of reasoning: Because B makes conclusion based on B's analysis only, so B fails to consider the possibility of further accurate analyses.

This flaw of reasoning DIFFERS from that in the question.

Back to the question, C says "there should be more further accurate analyses"
==> C attacks the argument by focusing on errors of analysis, not errors of the scientific method ==> C does not show the flaw of reasoning we need.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Kudos [?]: 3478 [1], given: 123

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2014, 06:52
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 04 Mar 2014
Posts: 142

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 178

Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2014, 20:18
Hello guys,
Can anyone explain why B is wrong?I understand that A is also good,but am unable to eliminate B.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 178

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2016, 06:43
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the   [#permalink] 24 Feb 2016, 06:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by