GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 01:46

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

Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1093
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2015, 14:33
Explanation found by reto is very good.
Especially for options A and B.
Please arrange in points rather than just simply pasting it. It will be comfortable to read.

reto wrote:
(A) describes an error that Siegfried has made. He sites his own limited experience as if it were conclusive proof that Brunhilda is wrong. He is the authority on his family's situation, but it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion he did based upon one individual scenario.

(B) is incorrect because he is not simply assuming a position to be true without offering any evidence. He offers evidence to prove his point. It is just not comprehensive.
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 626
Location: India
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2015, 19:40
Interesting question. What A means is that it is not correct to draw a conclusion from limited knowledge. In my view C says that Siegfried offering a specific case does not disprove the generalization. That is more or less the same as A, which is Siegfried is using limited knowledge for his conclusion.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 88
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2016, 12:56
Abhishek009 wrote:
Powerscore GMAT CR Bible States appeal to authority as -

An Appeal to Authority uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader. The flaw in this form of reasoning is that the authority may not have relevant knowledge or all the information regarding a situation, or there may a difference of opinion among experts as to what is true in the case.


In this case Brunhilda talks about future generations , however Siegfried talks about comparison of standard of living of people with that of his earlier generation, ( might be the situation is different)

In my opinion Siegfried could not provide a convincing arguement to challenge Brunhilda's arguement.


so basically "appeal to authority" means using parents (authority) as example of something being true, when in fact its just 1 example and doesn't necessarily have to be true?
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Posts: 121
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
GPA: 3.92
WE: Operations (Transportation)
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2016, 19:02
Anyone can help me find some better notes or links for reasoning questions in CR.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 88
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2016, 19:27
ynk wrote:
Anyone can help me find some better notes or links for reasoning questions in CR.


The GMAT Critical Reasoning Bible is the best book on CR. Look into it, its amazing.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Posts: 8
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2016, 14:58
pqhai wrote:
This question uses one of the most common fallacies "Appeal to authority"

The fallacy form is:
A is an authority/expert on subject X
A makes claim Y about subject X
Therefore, Y is true.


APPLY TO THIS QUESTION:

I will paraphrase a bit to make the stimulus follow the fallacy above:

* Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

* Siegfried: [From my experiences] My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents. So your point is simply untrue

Siegfried assumes his own experience is comprehensive enough ==> He is an expert /authority of this matter ==> His conclusion must be true.

This error is very common. When you hear some one says:
The scientists say that.....
I have a book that says......
I read a newspaper that says......
I saw on TV.........
From my own experience, I think.......


Immediately, you should think about the fallacy "appeal to authority". You should ask:
The scientists have expertise on this matter ?
The book is believable ?
The information on newspaper is true ?
The TV channel is biased or not?
Your own experience is comprehensive enough?
etc.......


ANALYZE EACH ANSWER

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Correct. As stated above.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
[b]Wrong.
The truth of what Siegfried said is actually true (from his family experience), not out of prove as B says.
[/b]
Hope it helps.

Hello Sir,
Kindly clear this doubt of mine ?

What does option B mean ?
My understanding : Economists predict that the probability of success of such a scenario( cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.) is great but not 100 percent sure. The problem with Siegfried is he assumes the economists statement to happen for sure. (Assumes the truth of what is sets out to prove)

I f you can elaborate the meaning of option B it'll be of great help to me.
Thanks in advance
Regards
Teja
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Status: 800 and more!
Joined: 11 Apr 2017
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.75
Reviews Badge
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2017, 01:13
pqhai wrote:
This question uses one of the most common fallacies "Appeal to authority"

The fallacy form is:
A is an authority/expert on subject X
A makes claim Y about subject X
Therefore, Y is true.


APPLY TO THIS QUESTION:

I will paraphrase a bit to make the stimulus follow the fallacy above:

* Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

* Siegfried: [From my experiences] My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents. So your point is simply untrue

Siegfried assumes his own experience is comprehensive enough ==> He is an expert /authority of this matter ==> His conclusion must be true.

This error is very common. When you hear some one says:
The scientists say that.....
I have a book that says......
I read a newspaper that says......
I saw on TV.........
From my own experience, I think.......


Immediately, you should think about the fallacy "appeal to authority". You should ask:
The scientists have expertise on this matter ?
The book is believable ?
The information on newspaper is true ?
The TV channel is biased or not?
Your own experience is comprehensive enough?
etc.......


ANALYZE EACH ANSWER

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Correct. As stated above.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
Wrong. The truth of what Siegfried said is actually true (from his family experience), not out of prove as B says.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
Wrong. Shell Game. The language used in C may make you think C is correct, but it's not. Actually, Siegfried opposed what Brunhilda mentioned because he said "this is simply untrue".

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
Wrong. Siegfried did not base his argument on future events, actually he mentioned something in the past (his family experience)

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Wrong. Siegfried did not oppose to any causal relationship here.

Hope it helps.


This one is just amazing. Thank you so much. Very helpful
Retired Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 249
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2017, 08:44
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________
Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
Reviews Badge
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jun 2018, 11:52
zoloo wrote:
if this came on test day i would have chosen D. then again i m a non native as well so might be wrong


Yes I am also got it wrong on my first attempt. But this question is good for understanding.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 169
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2019, 02:18
pqhai wrote:
This question uses one of the most common fallacies "Appeal to authority"

The fallacy form is:
A is an authority/expert on subject X
A makes claim Y about subject X
Therefore, Y is true.


APPLY TO THIS QUESTION:

I will paraphrase a bit to make the stimulus follow the fallacy above:

* Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

* Siegfried: [From my experiences] My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents. So your point is simply untrue

Siegfried assumes his own experience is comprehensive enough ==> He is an expert /authority of this matter ==> His conclusion must be true.

This error is very common. When you hear some one says:
The scientists say that.....
I have a book that says......
I read a newspaper that says......
I saw on TV.........
From my own experience, I think.......


Immediately, you should think about the fallacy "appeal to authority". You should ask:
The scientists have expertise on this matter ?
The book is believable ?
The information on newspaper is true ?
The TV channel is biased or not?
Your own experience is comprehensive enough?
etc.......


ANALYZE EACH ANSWER

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Correct. As stated above.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
Wrong. The truth of what Siegfried said is actually true (from his family experience), not out of prove as B says.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
Wrong. Shell Game. The language used in C may make you think C is correct, but it's not. Actually, Siegfried opposed what Brunhilda mentioned because he said "this is simply untrue".

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
Wrong. Siegfried did not base his argument on future events, actually he mentioned something in the past (his family experience)

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Wrong. Siegfried did not oppose to any causal relationship here.

Hope it helps.


pqhai Can u please explain the meaning on option A in simple words. I didn't understand what CR Bible wants to convey.

What does appeal to authority mean? What is the appeal to authority in this context??
VP
VP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2019, 21:56
To all test takers, if you have time for this question, then just pick a randon answer. This question is not worth your test time at all. It takes me 1 minute to have an answer in my mind, but 3 minutes to choose the answer.

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority. -> a very common pattern in gmat.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove. -> I choose this even though I thought of A. I changed my mind because I thought "authority" should relates to experts. Again, B is also an important pettern, but B is incorrect. B does not assumes any conclusion.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. -> kaplan 700 has this pattern -> this example is consistent -> out
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events. -> out of scope
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship. -> nothing to do with causal relationship
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation   [#permalink] 30 Mar 2019, 21:56

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne