Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1405:30 AM PST
-07:30 AM PST
Did you know that around 66% of CR questions fall under a certain Framework? Learn how to Pre-think assumptions within 90 seconds using Guided Framework driven Pre- thinking in Causality, Plan-Goal, Comparison and more!
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
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. 
Dec 1511:30 AM EST
-12:30 PM EST
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options. 
Dec 2008:00 PM PST
-09:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
03 May 2006, 14:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
29% (01:46) correct
71%
(01:49)
wrong
based on 611
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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
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
29 Jun 2013, 18:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
B is the correct answer, but not for the reasons outlined above.
This is a question from the June 1997 LSAT. This is the last question within section II of the exam. This was, for me, a difficult question, but after diagramming the argument out, it was fairly easy to identify the flaw within the reasoning.
The stimulus states:
"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."
Words like "if" and "only if" help to set off sufficient and necessary conditions within conditional reasoning. In this case, the first sentence states "A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign if indicted for a crime" (the "if" sets off a sufficient condition). Rearranging this statement, we can see that "if indicted for a crime (I), then that elected official should resign (R)"
When diagrammed, the statements above should look similar to this:
I--->R
The second sentence states that "35 percent believe that elected officials should resign (R) only if they are convicted of a crime (C)."
The phrase "only if" sets off a necessary condition. The diagram of this statement should look as follows:
R--->C
The conclusion of the argument says "Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted."
This (flawed) conditional statement would be diagrammed as follows:
Therefore, more people believe that I--->R than believe C--->R; or more simply I--->R, C--->R
The sufficient and necessary (required) conditions have been confused. A sound conclusion based on these statements would read:
"Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign only if convicted."
The correct diagram of these statements would look like this:
I--->R, R--->C
In short, the conclusion confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary (required) condition, as reflected in answer choice B.
This is a question from the June 1997 LSAT. This is the last question within section II of the exam. This was, for me, a difficult question, but after diagramming the argument out, it was fairly easy to identify the flaw within the reasoning.
The stimulus states:
"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."
Words like "if" and "only if" help to set off sufficient and necessary conditions within conditional reasoning. In this case, the first sentence states "A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign if indicted for a crime" (the "if" sets off a sufficient condition). Rearranging this statement, we can see that "if indicted for a crime (I), then that elected official should resign (R)"
When diagrammed, the statements above should look similar to this:
I--->R
The second sentence states that "35 percent believe that elected officials should resign (R) only if they are convicted of a crime (C)."
The phrase "only if" sets off a necessary condition. The diagram of this statement should look as follows:
R--->C
The conclusion of the argument says "Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted."
This (flawed) conditional statement would be diagrammed as follows:
Therefore, more people believe that I--->R than believe C--->R; or more simply I--->R, C--->R
The sufficient and necessary (required) conditions have been confused. A sound conclusion based on these statements would read:
"Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign only if convicted."
The correct diagram of these statements would look like this:
I--->R, R--->C
In short, the conclusion confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary (required) condition, as reflected in answer choice B.
03 May 2006, 17:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
My guess was B...
For a conviction of a crime it is necessary for a person to be indicted for the crime. So of the 50% who believe an indictment is reason enough to resign 35% believe the person needs to be convicted in order to resign.
so 50-35=15% only believe an indictment is the only pre requisite for resignation.
Here the premise is in order for a person to be convicted an indictment is a required condition which is 35% of the people sampled and only 15% believe only an indictment is necessary which is the sufficient condition.
For a conviction of a crime it is necessary for a person to be indicted for the crime. So of the 50% who believe an indictment is reason enough to resign 35% believe the person needs to be convicted in order to resign.
so 50-35=15% only believe an indictment is the only pre requisite for resignation.
Here the premise is in order for a person to be convicted an indictment is a required condition which is 35% of the people sampled and only 15% believe only an indictment is necessary which is the sufficient condition.
