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 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
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 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.
14 Oct 2017, 18:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
80% (01:47) correct
20%
(02:03)
wrong
based on 488
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Advertisement: Among popular automobiles, Sturdimades stand apart. Around the world, hundreds of longtime Sturdimade owners have signed up for Sturdimade’s “long distance” club, members of which must have a Sturdimade they have driven for a total of at least 100,000 miles or 160,000 kilometers. Some members boast of having driven their Sturdimades for a total of 300,000 miles (480,000 kilometers). Clearly, if you buy a Sturdimade you can rely on being able to drive it for a very long distance.
Construed as an argument, the advertisement’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
(A) It draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion.
(B) Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it.
(C) It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises.
(D) The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion.
(E) It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim.
Construed as an argument, the advertisement’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
(A) It draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion.
(B) Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it.
(C) It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises.
(D) The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion.
(E) It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim.
11 Oct 2021, 22:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
vivek6199
Around the world, hundreds of longtime Sturdimade owners have signed up for Sturdimade’s “long distance” club, members of which must have a Sturdimade they have driven for a total of at least 100,000 miles or 160,000 kilometers.
Some members boast of having driven their Sturdimades for a total of 300,000 miles (480,000 kilometers).
Conclusion: If you buy a Sturdimade you can rely on being able to drive it for a very long distance.
The author states the data of Sturdimade's "long distance" club. That 100s have used it to for 100k miles and some even for 300k miles.
He uses this data to establish that Surdimate is a sturdy vehicle.
But the only data he considered was from the Sturdimade club. It is possible that 1000s of other people who own Sturdimade did not see even 50k miles.
Those club members are the ones who could make it to above 100k.
Hence, what is the flaw in logic here?
(A) It draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion.
The cases (of the long distance club) have been able to get long distances from Sturdimade and they support our conclusion. Nothing is given about all Sturdimade owners. Hence , this is correct. It does draw a general conclusion from cases selected to suit the conclusion.
(B) Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it.
Not correct. Evidence gives data. On that basis, the argument concludes that it is a long distance vehicle.
(C) It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises.
No such ambiguous term.
(D) The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion.
Not true. Evidence supports the conclusion.
(E) It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim.
There is no "popular opinion". Note that it doesn't say that 80% of Sturdimate owners like the vehicle. Hence, the vehicle is likeable.
We only have data about Sturdimade's long distance club. Possibly, only 1% Sturdimade owners belong to it.
Answer (A)
General Discussion
10 May 2018, 03:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
The answer is A.
The argument draws a general conclusion (Sturdimades last long) from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion (the club of people who have driven Strudimades for great distances). We aren't even considering the (possibly numerous) people for whom this wasn't the case. maybe only 1 in 1,000 Strudimades lasts this long?
The reasons the other answers are wrong:
(B) Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it. No, the conclusion (Strudimades will always last long) is not the same as the evidence (for some people, they do)
(C) It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises. Doesn't seem to be any such ambiguous term
(D) The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion. no... the fact that many people have driven the car for great distances strengthens the notion that this is always the case (but doesn't prove it of course)
(E) It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim. no opinion relied on here, only evidence (albeit insufficient evidence)
The argument draws a general conclusion (Sturdimades last long) from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion (the club of people who have driven Strudimades for great distances). We aren't even considering the (possibly numerous) people for whom this wasn't the case. maybe only 1 in 1,000 Strudimades lasts this long?
The reasons the other answers are wrong:
(B) Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it. No, the conclusion (Strudimades will always last long) is not the same as the evidence (for some people, they do)
(C) It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises. Doesn't seem to be any such ambiguous term
(D) The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion. no... the fact that many people have driven the car for great distances strengthens the notion that this is always the case (but doesn't prove it of course)
(E) It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim. no opinion relied on here, only evidence (albeit insufficient evidence)
