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 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 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 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.
vomhorizon
Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Last visit: 30 Mar 2018
Posts: 352
Given Kudos: 47
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Strategy
Schools: Duke '16 (A) McCombs '20 (A) Foster '20 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42
GPA: 3.88
WE:Medicine and Health (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
27 Nov 2012, 21:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
85% (01:58) correct
15%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 49
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
All the evidence so far gathered fits both Dr. Grippen's theory and Professor Heissmann's. However, the prediction that these theories make about the result of the planned experiment cannot both be true. Therefore, the result of this experiment will confurm one of these theories at the expense of the other.
The argument above exhibits an erroneous pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?
(A) David and Jane both think they know how to distinguish beech trees from elms, but when they look at trees together they often disagree. Therefore, at leat one of the must have an erroneous method.
(B) Although David thinks the tree they saw was a beech, Jane thinks it was an elm. jane's description of the tree's freatures is consistant with her opinion, so this description must be inconsistent with David's view.
(C) David and Jane have been equally good at identifying trees so far. But David says this one is an elm, whereas jane is unsure. Therefore, if this tree turns out to be an elm, we'll know David is better.
(D) David thinks that there are more beeches that elms int he forest. Jane thinks he is wrong. The section of forest we examined was small, but examination of the whole forest would either confirm David's view or disprove it.
(E) David thinks this tree is a beech. Jane thinks it is an elm. Maria, unlike David or Jane, is expert at tree identification, so when Maria gives her opinon it will verify either David's or Jane's opinion.
OA, After some time..
The argument above exhibits an erroneous pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?
(A) David and Jane both think they know how to distinguish beech trees from elms, but when they look at trees together they often disagree. Therefore, at leat one of the must have an erroneous method.
(B) Although David thinks the tree they saw was a beech, Jane thinks it was an elm. jane's description of the tree's freatures is consistant with her opinion, so this description must be inconsistent with David's view.
(C) David and Jane have been equally good at identifying trees so far. But David says this one is an elm, whereas jane is unsure. Therefore, if this tree turns out to be an elm, we'll know David is better.
(D) David thinks that there are more beeches that elms int he forest. Jane thinks he is wrong. The section of forest we examined was small, but examination of the whole forest would either confirm David's view or disprove it.
(E) David thinks this tree is a beech. Jane thinks it is an elm. Maria, unlike David or Jane, is expert at tree identification, so when Maria gives her opinon it will verify either David's or Jane's opinion.
OA, After some time..
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
27 Nov 2012, 23:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Tough one.. IMHO answer is D... Will explain if correct.
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
28 Nov 2012, 00:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Evidence--fit-->Theory. Prediction--future event-->both outcomes !true.
Conclusion: result confirms one at expense of other.
Red highlight is where the reasoning errors are. There are two reasoning errors in a small phrase here - that there is no other possibility other than two outcomes and that one possible outcome must be at the expense of the other.
(A) David and Jane both think they know how to distinguish beech trees from elms, but when they look at trees together they often disagree. Therefore, at least one of the must have an erroneous method. There is a causality of one outcome disproving another possible outcome, rather than a problem with the method. Incorrect.
(B) Although David thinks the tree they saw was a beech, Jane thinks it was an elm. jane's description of the tree's freatures is consistant with her opinion, so this description must be inconsistent with David's view. There must be an inconsistency between results (not description, which is subjective) such that the (objective) result disproves the other possible result. Incorrect.
(C) David and Jane have been equally good at identifying trees so far. But David says this one is an elm, whereas jane is unsure. Therefore, if this tree turns out to be an elm, we'll know David is better. David is better attaches a quality to the person. Not related to an objective outcome. Incorrect.
(D) David thinks that there are more beeches that elms int he forest. Jane thinks he is wrong. The section of forest we examined was small, but examination of the whole forest would either confirm David's view or disprove it. This actually is the opposite of what the question is asking and contains no reasoning error. Incorrect.
(E) David thinks this tree is a beech. Jane thinks it is an elm. Maria, unlike David or Jane, is expert at tree identification, so when Maria gives her opinon it will verify either David's or Jane's opinion. Maria's opinion will validate either David's or Jane's, i.e. one outcome would come at the expense of other. Objective result. Both reasoning errors present (both can't be wrong and one must come at the expense of other). Correct.
Parallel reasoning hard questions cook my goat. I appreciate the question. Thanks.
Conclusion: result confirms one at expense of other.
Red highlight is where the reasoning errors are. There are two reasoning errors in a small phrase here - that there is no other possibility other than two outcomes and that one possible outcome must be at the expense of the other.
(A) David and Jane both think they know how to distinguish beech trees from elms, but when they look at trees together they often disagree. Therefore, at least one of the must have an erroneous method. There is a causality of one outcome disproving another possible outcome, rather than a problem with the method. Incorrect.
(B) Although David thinks the tree they saw was a beech, Jane thinks it was an elm. jane's description of the tree's freatures is consistant with her opinion, so this description must be inconsistent with David's view. There must be an inconsistency between results (not description, which is subjective) such that the (objective) result disproves the other possible result. Incorrect.
(C) David and Jane have been equally good at identifying trees so far. But David says this one is an elm, whereas jane is unsure. Therefore, if this tree turns out to be an elm, we'll know David is better. David is better attaches a quality to the person. Not related to an objective outcome. Incorrect.
(D) David thinks that there are more beeches that elms int he forest. Jane thinks he is wrong. The section of forest we examined was small, but examination of the whole forest would either confirm David's view or disprove it. This actually is the opposite of what the question is asking and contains no reasoning error. Incorrect.
(E) David thinks this tree is a beech. Jane thinks it is an elm. Maria, unlike David or Jane, is expert at tree identification, so when Maria gives her opinon it will verify either David's or Jane's opinion. Maria's opinion will validate either David's or Jane's, i.e. one outcome would come at the expense of other. Objective result. Both reasoning errors present (both can't be wrong and one must come at the expense of other). Correct.
Parallel reasoning hard questions cook my goat. I appreciate the question. Thanks.
