It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 12:02

### 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 survey showed that 50 percent of people polled

Author Message
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1207

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan
A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 06:57
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign if indicted for a crime, whereas 35 percent believe that elected officials should resign only if they are convicted of a crime. Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted.

The reasoning above is flawed because it

(A) draws a conclusion about the population in general based only on a sample of that population
(B) confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition
(C) is based on an ambiguity of one of its terms
(D) draws a conclusion about a specific belief based on responses to queries about two different specific beliefs
(E) contains premises that cannot all be true

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 274

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 07:06
"A" for me.

a sample cannot represent entire population.

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 288

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 10:05
I'll pick B.
35 percent - convicted of a crime - ie. convicted is required condition.
50 percent - indicted for a crime => convicted is sufficient condition.

ie. 50 = 35 + (elected officials should resign even if indicted)
Thus the reasoning is false.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 850

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 10:30
One more for A - looks more like an AWA question

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 12:16
B)...

people who are convicted are indicted as well. so the % of people who think that a convicted officer should resign might be higher because this group contains the first group as well as the second group. so the argument confuses a sufficient condition (indicted) with a required condition (convicted) and makes an illogical conclusion.

IMO its not A) because nowhere in the argument is stated that its only a sample of the population.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 367

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2005, 05:19
sonaketu wrote:
I'll pick B.
35 percent - convicted of a crime - ie. convicted is required condition.
50 percent - indicted for a crime => convicted is sufficient condition.

ie. 50 = 35 + (elected officials should resign even if indicted)
Thus the reasoning is false.

Very true It has to be B.

Saurabh Malpani

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1207

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

02 May 2005, 00:07
christoph wrote:
B)...

people who are convicted are indicted as well. so the % of people who think that a convicted officer should resign might be higher because this group contains the first group as well as the second group. so the argument confuses a sufficient condition (indicted) with a required condition (convicted) and makes an illogical conclusion.

IMO its not A) because nowhere in the argument is stated that its only a sample of the population.

Hi, but the conclusion is that more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted.

I cannot get your explanation, would you explain more?

thanks

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

02 May 2005, 03:16
my reasoning is wrong !

i think that the reasoning is in that way flawed that the author makes his conclusion due to the %, which is not necessary, because there is no way that the number of people who think that a convicted official should resign will be greater than the number of people who think that a indicted offcial should resign. the "corpus delicti" of conviction is subset of indiction. so the set of people (think indicted) will always be greater than the subset (think convicted). so its a flaw to combine these two conditions as the basis for the conclusion, because you cannot compare them, because they are on different setlevels. when the author says "therefore" he refers to the %, but that is flawed because the reason of the conclusion is not that 50% is greater than 30% but because the second group is a subset of the first group.

maybe somone can explain it better...
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 893

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 May 2005, 15:41
I also fell in the trap. U guys are gr8. It has to be (B).

Thanks sonaketu/cristoph for the explaination.

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1207

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

03 May 2005, 09:59
christoph wrote:
my reasoning is wrong !

i think that the reasoning is in that way flawed that the author makes his conclusion due to the %, which is not necessary, because there is no way that the number of people who think that a convicted official should resign will be greater than the number of people who think that a indicted offcial should resign. the "corpus delicti" of conviction is subset of indiction. so the set of people (think indicted) will always be greater than the subset (think convicted). so its a flaw to combine these two conditions as the basis for the conclusion, because you cannot compare them, because they are on different setlevels. when the author says "therefore" he refers to the %, but that is flawed because the reason of the conclusion is not that 50% is greater than 30% but because the second group is a subset of the first group.

maybe somone can explain it better...

Yes, I agree with your above-mentioned reasoning.

But I cannot figure out why it relates to sufficient and necessary conditions.

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

03 May 2005, 13:04
chunjuwu wrote:
christoph wrote:
my reasoning is wrong !

i think that the reasoning is in that way flawed that the author makes his conclusion due to the %, which is not necessary, because there is no way that the number of people who think that a convicted official should resign will be greater than the number of people who think that a indicted offcial should resign. the "corpus delicti" of conviction is subset of indiction. so the set of people (think indicted) will always be greater than the subset (think convicted). so its a flaw to combine these two conditions as the basis for the conclusion, because you cannot compare them, because they are on different setlevels. when the author says "therefore" he refers to the %, but that is flawed because the reason of the conclusion is not that 50% is greater than 30% but because the second group is a subset of the first group.

maybe somone can explain it better...

Yes, I agree with your above-mentioned reasoning.

But I cannot figure out why it relates to sufficient and necessary conditions.

conviction is a required condition. it is required that the person is convicted. so we compare a required condition to another required condition. but in the argument the author confuses a sufficient condition (indiction) with a required condition and compares it to the other required condition (conviction). in the argument, indiction is the sufficient condition, because it is sufficient that a person is indicted regardless of the conviction of the person.

does anyone understand this confusing scribble
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1207

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

04 May 2005, 00:40
christoph wrote:
chunjuwu wrote:
christoph wrote:
my reasoning is wrong !

i think that the reasoning is in that way flawed that the author makes his conclusion due to the %, which is not necessary, because there is no way that the number of people who think that a convicted official should resign will be greater than the number of people who think that a indicted offcial should resign. the "corpus delicti" of conviction is subset of indiction. so the set of people (think indicted) will always be greater than the subset (think convicted). so its a flaw to combine these two conditions as the basis for the conclusion, because you cannot compare them, because they are on different setlevels. when the author says "therefore" he refers to the %, but that is flawed because the reason of the conclusion is not that 50% is greater than 30% but because the second group is a subset of the first group.

maybe somone can explain it better...

Yes, I agree with your above-mentioned reasoning.

But I cannot figure out why it relates to sufficient and necessary conditions.

conviction is a required condition. it is required that the person is convicted. so we compare a required condition to another required condition. but in the argument the author confuses a sufficient condition (indiction) with a required condition and compares it to the other required condition (conviction). in the argument, indiction is the sufficient condition, because it is sufficient that a person is indicted regardless of the conviction of the person.

does anyone understand this confusing scribble

Hi, why you said conviction is a required condition?

A men who is convicted must be indicted, but if he is indicted, he may or may not be convicted.

I think conviction, which can determine indiction, is a sufficient condition and indiction is a required condition.

Any wrong?

Kudos [?]: 820 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Location: Germany

### Show Tags

04 May 2005, 00:53
chunjuwu wrote:
christoph wrote:
chunjuwu wrote:
christoph wrote:
my reasoning is wrong !

i think that the reasoning is in that way flawed that the author makes his conclusion due to the %, which is not necessary, because there is no way that the number of people who think that a convicted official should resign will be greater than the number of people who think that a indicted offcial should resign. the "corpus delicti" of conviction is subset of indiction. so the set of people (think indicted) will always be greater than the subset (think convicted). so its a flaw to combine these two conditions as the basis for the conclusion, because you cannot compare them, because they are on different setlevels. when the author says "therefore" he refers to the %, but that is flawed because the reason of the conclusion is not that 50% is greater than 30% but because the second group is a subset of the first group.

maybe somone can explain it better...

Yes, I agree with your above-mentioned reasoning.

But I cannot figure out why it relates to sufficient and necessary conditions.

conviction is a required condition. it is required that the person is convicted. so we compare a required condition to another required condition. but in the argument the author confuses a sufficient condition (indiction) with a required condition and compares it to the other required condition (conviction). in the argument, indiction is the sufficient condition, because it is sufficient that a person is indicted regardless of the conviction of the person.

does anyone understand this confusing scribble

Hi, why you said conviction is a required condition?

A men who is convicted must be indicted, but if he is indicted, he may or may not be convicted.

I think conviction, which can determine indiction, is a sufficient condition and indiction is a required condition.

Any wrong?

no, conviction is the required and indiction is the sufficient condition in this context. it is sufficient that the officials are indicted for the people to demand that they should resign. "sufficient" is like a minimal requirement. so thats the indiction. "convicted" is like an add-on . that makes the condition more specific and hence is the required condition.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

04 May 2005, 00:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by