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.
May 0808:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
10 Oct 2020, 23:50
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:
45% (02:24) correct
55%
(02:26)
wrong
based on 474
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
According to the school’s principal, no teacher refusing to participate in the afternoon conference was allowed to attend the buffet dinner immediately after the conference. Brett, who is one of the school’s teachers, is not the sort of person to refuse a buffet dinner; yet I’m certain Brett was not at the dinner. I can only conclude that Brett refused to participate in the conference.
Which of the following demonstrates a pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
(A) All attentive students are rewarded with high grades in school. Alan is not attentive as a student. Therefore, he will not be rewarded with high grades in school.
(B) Every person seated in the front row can hear the coach’s instructions to his players. Ursula can hear the coach’s instructions. Therefore, Ursula must be seated in the front row.
(C) Anyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens is either not being truthful or is mistaken about whether he or she has been abducted by aliens. Sandy is always truthful. Therefore, she has not been abducted by aliens.
(D) Every legislator is in favor of the bill. Martha is not in favor of the bill. Therefore, she must not be a legislator.
(E) This sculpture is either priceless or a worthless fake. This sculpture is not a worthless fake. Therefore, it is priceless.
Which of the following demonstrates a pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
(A) All attentive students are rewarded with high grades in school. Alan is not attentive as a student. Therefore, he will not be rewarded with high grades in school.
(B) Every person seated in the front row can hear the coach’s instructions to his players. Ursula can hear the coach’s instructions. Therefore, Ursula must be seated in the front row.
(C) Anyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens is either not being truthful or is mistaken about whether he or she has been abducted by aliens. Sandy is always truthful. Therefore, she has not been abducted by aliens.
(D) Every legislator is in favor of the bill. Martha is not in favor of the bill. Therefore, she must not be a legislator.
(E) This sculpture is either priceless or a worthless fake. This sculpture is not a worthless fake. Therefore, it is priceless.
Source: Master GMAT
13 Oct 2020, 04:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
The original argument boils down to the following:
Premise: If a teacher refuses to attend the conference, then the teacher will not attend the buffet.
Premise: Brett did not attend the buffet.
Conclusion: Brett refused to attend the conference.
To reveal the argument’s structure (and its flawed reasoning), express the argument using symbols:
Premise: If A, then B.
Premise: X is B.
Conclusion: X is A.
This reasoning is fallacious (flawed), and choice (B) demonstrates the same basic pattern:
Premise: If a person is seated in the front row, then the person can hear the coach. (If A, then B.)
Premise: Ursula can hear the coach. (X is B.)
Conclusion: Ursula is seated in the front row. (X is A.)
The correct answer is (B).
The original argument boils down to the following:
Premise: If a teacher refuses to attend the conference, then the teacher will not attend the buffet.
Premise: Brett did not attend the buffet.
Conclusion: Brett refused to attend the conference.
To reveal the argument’s structure (and its flawed reasoning), express the argument using symbols:
Premise: If A, then B.
Premise: X is B.
Conclusion: X is A.
This reasoning is fallacious (flawed), and choice (B) demonstrates the same basic pattern:
Premise: If a person is seated in the front row, then the person can hear the coach. (If A, then B.)
Premise: Ursula can hear the coach. (X is B.)
Conclusion: Ursula is seated in the front row. (X is A.)
The correct answer is (B).
General Discussion
