Although all contemporary advertising tries to persuade, only a small

All ads —- persuade
Small amount of ads—morally reprehensible
Some persuasion —— morally reprehensible

This is the structure.

A. No chemicals —- affect original dyes
Original colors —- fully restored.

B. Not all tracking studios —- illustrate corporate returns
Some studios —- not reliable

C. Good managers —- decision based on data
Some managers — decision not based on data
Some managers —- not good

D. Correlation — b/w repetition and retention
Repetition —- critical for retention

E. All sonnets — short poems
Some sonnets —- pluralism
Some short poems —- pluralism.

E resembles the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

I don't understand why C is incorrect and why E is correct?

Passage
All contemporary advertising (CA) tries to persuade --- Total number of CA 10
Small portion of CA is morally reprehensible (MR) --- Total MR attempts at CA 2
Thus, some attempts at persuasion are MR. -- Correct. Since some can include the smallest of % so long as it is greater than 0.

(C) A good manager always makes important decisions on the basis of adequate data, although of course some managers fail to do this. It follows that some managers are not good managers.

Good manager --> "always" makes use of data
Some manager --> fail to do the above (not always use data)
Some manager --> Not good manager.

Closely mirrors the reasoning given in passage.

(E) Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such pluralism, and all sonnets are short poems.

SOME short poems are pluralistic -- eg: 4/10
SOME sonnets are characterised by pluralism -- could be any number -- 1 or 2, less than 50% basically.
Thus, All sonnets are short poems -- Incorrect conclusion. Since some sonnets may not be short poems.

All right, I see a couple questions about this one, and I will admit to taking a close look at two answer choices before settling on the OA. The real question: How do we disprove (C)? Read on, and if you are curious, feel free to check out my analyses to the other responses as well. First, the question:


We need to find an answer choice that parallels the logic of the passage, so how does the passage break down?


The dependent clause of sentence 1 reveals that all contemporary advertising tries to persuade. Simple enough.
The main clause of sentence 1 delves a little deeper into contemporary advertising: a small portion... can be considered morally reprehensible.
The second sentence provides a conclusion: some attempts at persuasion [are] morally reprehensible.

To be honest, the only aspect of the passage that flummoxed me was the transition nevertheless. I felt the conclusion was grounded without it. However, I can appreciate how the transition might counterbalance the only a small portion of the previous sentence. Anyway, enough semantic fact-checking. On to the answers.

I was expecting something more along the lines of all chemicals... some chemicals... some chemicals. Here, we shift from none of the chemicals to dyes to colors, as well as focusing on what does not happen. This does not parallel the reasoning used in the passage at all.

The passage does not start with a negation, not to mention that the middle link is missing. We cannot conclude that just because not all such studies fail to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment, some of them must be unreliable. There is no qualifying statement about what makes a study reliable, so there is no basis for judgment.

The moment of truth. This one is so close, but it just misses out. Why did I highlight the first some managers? Because to parallel the passage, the answer would have to say, although of course some good managers fail to do this, and that statement would contradict what we had just learned about a good manager. That is, it cannot be true that a good manager always follows a certain course of action, yet some good managers fail to do so. For this answer choice to parallel the passage, the passage itself would have to shift from all contemporary advertising to some other type of advertising, perhaps something that had been used in the past. Instead, the passage repeats all contemporary advertising. As I imagine just about everyone else did, I placed this answer choice on hold for further analysis of the other options.

Where do I begin with this one? It starts with a statement that the reader is meant to take as fact, rather than trickling down from all to some of something. Then, the second link is missing, and finally, the switch got flipped from some in the passage to a definitive always here. Keep moving.

The trouble I had here was with presentation. It is all backwards! But notice that the question does not ask us to parallel the sentence-by-sentence progression of the passage. Instead, it asks us to parallel the reasoning. If we take a moment to start from the end, we get something that fits:

All sonnets are short poems, and some sonnets are characterized by thematic pluralism. Some short poems are therefore thematically pluralistic.

The logical progression goes from all to a subset of the same type of poem and makes a comment on a feature of this subset, thereby allowing us to conclude that some representatives of the broader category retain the same feature. In the language of the passage,

Although all sonnets are short poems, only a small portion of sonnets can be characterized by thematic pluralism. It nevertheless follows that some attempts at short poems can be regarded as thematically pluralistic.

This makes perfect sense. If you think I changed too much to make the answer fit, then consider doing the same with (C), and I think you will further expose the logical disconnect:

Although all good managers always make important decisions on the basis of adequate data, only a small portion of managers fail to do this. It nevertheless follows that some managers can be regarded as not being good managers.

It is not that I disagree that some managers might not make the grade, as implied from the beginning with the designation of good managers (as opposed to poor ones, presumably). It is just that by swapping out good managers for some managers in general in the second part, the reasoning of the answer choice and the passage start on divergent paths. This is a subtle one, but in CR, you have to make every word count.

I would be happy to discuss any contrary views on the matter. I cast my vote for (E).

- Andrew

The approach I used to solve this question involved extracting the structure of the stem's logic first, and then comparing it to the answer choices.

So first: Extracting the structure of the question stem:

"Although all contemporary advertising tries to persuade, only a small portion of contemporary advertising can be considered morally reprehensible. It nevertheless follows that some attempts at persuasion can be regarded as morally reprehensible."

There are three items in this argument that are being related to each other in specific ways. The items are: contemporary advertising, persuasion, and "moral reprehensiveness"

The items are related to each other in the following way:

Some contemporary advertising is morally reprehensible.
All contemporary advertising is persuasive.
Therefore, some persuasion is morally reprehensible.

Put another way: Persuasion (P), contemporary advertising (A) and moral reprehension (R):

Since some A is R and all A is P, some P is R.

Then we can compare this to the answer choices:

(A) None of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes. Hence, the colors used by Michelangelo will be fully restored.


If we try using our categories in answer choice A, we get: None of A (the chemicals) is R (bad) for the C (the colors of the chapel). A is used in C. Therefore, C is not affected by R. This reasoning is not the same as the one in the question stem.


(B) Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment. Hence, some of these studies are not reliable.

It is difficult to even put answer choice B in terms similar to the question stem: Not all A (tracking studies) is R (exact calculations). Hence, some studies are not reliable (which is an opinion on inexact calculations). Not the correct answer….

(C) A good manager always makes important decisions on the basis of adequate data, although of course some managers fail to do this. It follows that some managers are not good managers.

Here we would get: "A" (a good manager) is always R (making decisions based on adequate data). Not all P (all managers) are R (making decisions based on adequate data). Therefore, some P (managers) are not A (good managers).

This structure looks so similar to the question stem! BUT let's bring the stem here…

Stem: Some A is R, and all A is P, therefore some P is R.
Answer B: All A is R, NOT all P is R, therefore not all P is A.

Even though similar, these reasonings are not the same. I would probably keep it for now, but we will see that E is the perfect answer choice.

(D) There is a direct correlation between the number of times you repeat something and the degree to which you retain it. Therefore, repetition is always a critical factor in remembering.

I don't even know where to start with D: A (number of repetitions) and R (degree of retention) are directly related. Therefore, R is always critical for A. NO...

(E) Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such pluralism, and all sonnets are short poems.

We just need to re-order the statements made in E to realize it is the exact same reasoning as the question stem's:

Some A (sonnets) are R (thematically pluralistic)
All A (sonnets) are P (short poems)
Therefore some P (short poems) are R (thematically pluralistic)

Perfect!
­

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.