Apple are always Red. John bought a Red fruit. Therefore, it was an Ap

The answer is c as it contains the flaw that was there in original sentence .

some solid reason on why E is wrong..?somebody..?

Can somebody please explain why E is wrong ?

There is a strong case for option E here since the reasoning behind it is also flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The right answer here is C. This is a structure based question, which means the only thing we wanna focus on is how the argument is set up, not whether it makes sense or not.

To do this, it's sometimes easier to break the original argument down to x,y,z. This is because the real world terms are introduced in order to confuse us by making us consider real world validity. So the argument really just is:

X is a Y thing. The thing we observe (Z) is a Y thing. Hence, it was also an X.

A - X is a Y. We saw (Z) a Y. Hence, it may have been X. <-- This is only wrong for the usage of "may" instead of "must". OUT

B - X is not always Y. We saw (Z) a not-Y. Hence, it may or may not have been X. This is obviously incorrect. OUT

C - X is always Y (with an exception). We saw (Z) a Y. Hence, it is X. This is the right reasoning we're looking for.

D - X always does Y. Few Z are Y. Hence, X does some Z. This is super super outlandish. OUT

E - X is a Y. Z likes doing Y. Hence, Z likes doing X. This is close, but not exactly right. A better answer would have been one that told us what constitutes gambling (X), not whether X is done or not. OUT

Therefore, C is correct. One interesting thing here. The argument used in C is true. But, it is still flawed reasoning to get there, just as it was in the argument. However, the fact that C was a true statement could potentially have led you down the wrong path. Remember that when it comes to structure based CR questions, truth and validity play second fiddle to simply "what are the elements of the argument".

- Matoo

In this Argument Author has mistaken sufficient condition for necessary condition
Original statement says
Sufficient condition => Necessary condition ; sufficient condition guarantees Necessary condition
Apple are always Red
Apple => Red
Apple guarantee red color

Reasoning
John bought a Red fruit. Therefore, it was an Apple. Therefore is an indicator for necessary condition
Red color guarantee Apple
Case of mistaken reversal

As per author any red fruit is an apple,

We need to find an option representing same flaw where necessary condition is mistaken for sufficient condition

Option A
Reasoning
Sufficient condition: Fast creature(FS)
Necessary Condition: May have been a cheetah(C)

FS => may or may not C
Not a parallel flaw

Option B
Reasoning
Sufficient condition: Brown bird(Bb)
Necessary Condition: May or may not crow(Cr)
BB => may or may not CR
Not a parallel flaw

Option C
Original
Prime Numbers => Odd
Prime numbers guarantee odd nos

Reasoning
Sufficient condition: odd number i.e 13
Necessary Condition: Prime number
Odd number => Prime number
Odd number guarantee prime numbers
It's a flaw of mistaken reversal

IMO C

similarly you can eliminate other Options