Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 15:43 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 15:43
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
eyunni
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Last visit: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 251
Own Kudos:
3,344
 [20]
Posts: 251
Kudos: 3,344
 [20]
Kudos
Add Kudos
20
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
sidbidus
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 03 Aug 2020
Posts: 159
Own Kudos:
705
 [4]
Posts: 159
Kudos: 705
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
eyunni
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Last visit: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 251
Own Kudos:
3,344
 [1]
Posts: 251
Kudos: 3,344
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
sidbidus
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 03 Aug 2020
Posts: 159
Own Kudos:
705
 [1]
Posts: 159
Kudos: 705
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There is a boundary line condition which is missing in the argument and in E.

In B

(B)Only those violin students who attended extra rehearsal sessions were eligible for selection as soloists. Since two of the violin students were selected as soloists, those two must have been the only violin students who attended the extra sessions.

-- What about the other students who attended the extra rehearsal sessions but did not get selected?

There is no condition missing in (B). All blue color are same.

But notice the boundary condition missing in the argument and (E)
User avatar
eyunni
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Last visit: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 251
Own Kudos:
Posts: 251
Kudos: 3,344
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sidbidus
There is a boundary line condition which is missing in the argument and in E.

In B

(B)Only those violin students who attended extra rehearsal sessions were eligible for selection as soloists. Since two of the violin students were selected as soloists, those two must have been the only violin students who attended the extra sessions.

-- What about the other students who attended the extra rehearsal sessions but did not get selected?

There is no condition missing in (B). All blue color are same.

But notice the boundary condition missing in the argument and (E)


Got it. It is (E). Thanks Sidbidus.
User avatar
gandharvm
Joined: 28 Sep 2019
Last visit: 21 Jun 2023
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
GPA: 3
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
Posts: 48
Kudos: 25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Please explain answer choices A and E
User avatar
reynaldreni
Joined: 07 May 2015
Last visit: 02 Nov 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
142
 [2]
Given Kudos: 152
Location: India
Schools: Darden '21
GPA: 4
Schools: Darden '21
Posts: 76
Kudos: 142
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
eyunni
At the company picnic, all of the employees who participated in more than four of the scheduled events, and only those employees were eligible for the raffle held at the end of the day. Since only a small proportion of the employees were eligible for the raffle, most of the employees must have participated in fewer than four of the scheduled events.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most like that exhibited by the argument above?

(A) Only third-and fourth-year students are allowed to keep cars on campus. Since one quarter of the third-year students keep cars on campus and one half of the fourth-year students keep cars on campus, it must be that fewer third-year students than fourth-year students keep cars on campus.
(B) Only those violin students who attended extra rehearsal sessions were eligible for selection as soloists. Since two of the violin students were selected as soloists, those two must have been the only violin students who attended the extra sessions.
(C) The only students honored at a special banquet were the band members who made the dean’s list last semester. Since most the band members were honored, most of the band members must have made the dean’s list.
(D) All of the members of the service club who volunteered at the hospital last summer were biology majors. Since ten of the club members are biology majors, those ten members must have volunteered at the hospital last summer.
(E) All of the swim team members who had decreased their racing times during the season were given awards that no other members were given. Since fewer than half the team members were given such awards, the racing times of more than half the team members must have increased during the season.

Please explain your answers.


At the company picnic, all of the employees who participated in more than four of the scheduled events, and only those employees were eligible for the raffle held at the end of the day. Since only a small proportion of the employees were eligible for the raffle, most of the employees must have participated in fewer than four of the scheduled events.


The argument overlooks the possibility that most of the employees could have actually taken exactly 4 scheduled events.
Argument talks about "more than four" and "fewer than four"


Similarly, Option E, " All of the swim team members who had decreased their racing times during the season were given awards that no other members were given. Since fewer than half the team members were given such awards, the racing times of more than half the team members must have increased during the season."


Option E talks about "decreased racing time" and "increased racing time". The option overlooks the possibility of "Constant racing time (no change)"


OA E
User avatar
reynaldreni
Joined: 07 May 2015
Last visit: 02 Nov 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 152
Location: India
Schools: Darden '21
GPA: 4
Schools: Darden '21
Posts: 76
Kudos: 142
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gandharvm
Please explain answer choices A and E


A's flaw is incorrect comparison between absolute numbers and fractions
E's flaw is about changes and categorizing changes only into two groups, while a third category is possible
avatar
Thekingmaker
Joined: 28 Nov 2020
Last visit: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 96
Posts: 112
Kudos: 38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
absolutely made think that me A was the option however the propotion worked out perfectly hence i went down hunting for other options e was the next one that came upon the list and WHOOle it's the answer
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 563
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 563
Kudos: 318
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is it just me or there are lot of grammatical errors in this question? I had to read the first sentence thrice just to make sure I'm reading right.

"At the company picnic, all of the employees who participated in more than four of the scheduled events, and only those employees were eligible for the raffle held at the end of the day"
User avatar
Fdambro294
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Last visit: 20 Aug 2025
Posts: 1,350
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,656
Posts: 1,350
Kudos: 742
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The flawed pattern of reasoning I noticed was the following:

If an employee was eligible for the raffle, then that employee was required to compete in MORE THAN 4 of the events.


We are told that only a small proportion of the employees were eligible for the raffle. Thus, only a small proportion met the requirement of entering more than 4 of the events.

The author then concludes that the majority of the employees (the remaining employees) must have participated in FEWER than 4 events.

What about the people who participated in EXACTLY 4 events? It’s possible that all the people who weren’t eligible participated in exactly 4 events and did not meet the requirement of participating in MORE THAN 4 events.


In E were are given a similar requirement. Only the swimmers who met the requirement of DECREASING their times were eligible for awards.

Only fewer than half were given the awards. This means only fewer than half must have met the requirement of DECREASED times.

The conclusion is then made that the other people who didn’t meet the requirement, more than half, must have INCREASED their times.

What about the swimmers whose times remained the SAME? It could have been that more than half of the swimmers had times that didn’t change and therefore didn’t meet the requirement to get the trophy.

By ignoring this “middle ground,” I believe E makes the same pattern of flawed reasoning as the passage.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,830
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,830
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts