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

It is currently 12 Dec 2019, 16:30

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 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Training
Joined: 03 Jun 2013
Posts: 80
Location: Canada
GPA: 3.7
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2013, 21:38
22
97
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

15% (01:37) correct 85% (01:50) wrong based on 1789 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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: That's simply untrue. 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.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Current Student
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4279
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
#Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2015, 22:50
1
10
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: That's simply untrue. 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.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
_________________
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Location: United States
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2013, 23:16
118
1
57
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.
General Discussion
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Location: United States
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2013, 02:00
5
2
mahendru1992 wrote:
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.

I still haven't understood how C is wrong. And what does appeal to authority actually means?


Hi mahendru1992

I'm glad to help.

**C says: example that is consistent [not inconsistent = consistent] with Brunhilda’s argument ==> C means Siegfried agreed with Bruhilda’s conclusion. But what Siegfried actually said, he said “That’s simply untrue….” <== Clearly, Siegfried disagreed with Bruhilda’s conclusion. Thus, C is wrong.

**Appeal to authority means some one is persuaded NOT by other people logic but by his/her “POWER”.
For example:
Peter: I don’t believe that Mars has water.
Mary: No, you’re wrong. My very famous professor believes that Mars has water.
Peter: Yes, you’re right. Mars should have water.

Mary and Peter believe that Mars has water just simply because a famous professor believe. That may be not true if a professor does not expertise in planet sciences.

This question is the same:
Siegfried says: That's simply untrue. [from my experience] My father's standard of living is nowhere ........ ==> He assumed that his experience has "power" enough to convince other people. But that's may be wrong if his experience is not comprehensive enough.

Hope it helps.
Board of Directors
User avatar
D
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4834
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2015, 11:14
4
1
reto wrote:
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Seems the correct one, although I am not quite sure. Does "authority" refer to Siegfried's parents? Then that's the one. A bit tricky for non-natives.


Even I am also with (A) this seems the most promising.

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.

This is indeed a great question!!
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 687
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2013, 02:18
3
4
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.


one of the best explanation i will say...
its a new thing to me
cheers
_________________
When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...



GMAT RCs VOCABULARY LIST: http://gmatclub.com/forum/vocabulary-list-for-gmat-reading-comprehension-155228.html
learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APt9ITygGss
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1098
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
#Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2015, 13:35
2
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: That's simply untrue. 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.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?

We can easily detect that the two statements are contrasting or opposite to each other.

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove. (Opposite)

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
(Siegfried did not say anything reg future events. He retrospected past events.)

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
(No causal relationship exists here. OFS)

Between options A and C, I selected C as I could not understand option A.

great hint from Abhishek as I understood why A is correct...........kudos to you :) Abhishek009
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.

This is indeed a great question!!


Coming to option C, I realized it is well laid trap for people like me :evil: and uses a Double negative.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

not inconsistent means consistent as two negative words cancel out each other.

i.e., It offers an example that is consistent with Brunhilda's argument. (Opposite. same as B)

refer below link to learn more about Double negatives.
double-negatives-206717.html?hilit=double
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Got Bling! Joined Phd Finance at IIML
Affiliations: IIMB, advantages.us, IIML
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 72
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2013, 10:39
1
mattce wrote:
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: That's simply untrue. 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.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.


The negative correlation apparently cannot be stated as correlation etc in E but to my logical mind it seems the right bucket for this reasoning? thanks to the primary explanation though i can get to see A
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Location: United States
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2013, 11:36
1
1
docdrizzeally wrote:
mattce wrote:
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: That's simply untrue. 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.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.


The negative correlation apparently cannot be stated as correlation etc in E but to my logical mind it seems the right bucket for this reasoning? thanks to the primary explanation though i can get to see A


Dear docdrizzeally

Per my understanding, E is wrong because it's half right, half wrong.

Half right: E may be half correct by stating about the usage of evidence of a correlation. The fact Siegfried said is a correlation [my father's standard of living ==> my own standard of living]

Half wrong: E is also half wrong, because Brunhilda did not talk about any causal relationship. Note that the causal relationship form is: A & B both exist ==> A causes B. However, Brunhilda's conclusion is just a prediction(X cannot be better than Y) without any explanation of relationship between X and Y ==> That's not the form of "causal relationship".

Hence, E is not correct.

Regards.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 90
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2013, 20:37
1
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.

I still haven't understood how C is wrong. And what does appeal to authority actually means?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 111
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2013, 22:22
1
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.

Awesome explanation....Thanks a lot...
_________________
Preparing for another shot...
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 54
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2013, 23:21
1
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.


Hello pqhai,

thank you for the explanation, but I still think that C is the right choice while I do not think that A is the right choice.

Why I see C correct is because B talks about confidence (or probability) and S talks about actual case.
I'll try to provide Analogous example, not sure if it is good although:
B: Today's Real-Barcelona match is the first one to not have a true favorite.
S: That is not true. Those teams played 10 times this year and Barcelona won 7 games.

However, now I reread the answer C which says "example that is not INconsistent". I read it first as "not consistent". So if "inconsistent" is not misspelled, then C is wrong.

Then A is probably the right answer, but I do not see any specific appeal to authority. Probably, that's an Idiom that I am not aware of :)
I will google it.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Location: United States
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2013, 00:48
1
happyinlove505 wrote:
Hello pqhai,

thank you for the explanation, but I still think that C is the right choice while I do not think that A is the right choice.

Why I see C correct is because B talks about confidence (or probability) and S talks about actual case.
I'll try to provide Analogous example, not sure if it is good although:
B: Today's Real-Barcelona match is the first one to not have a true favorite.
S: That is not true. Those teams played 10 times this year and Barcelona won 7 games.

However, now I reread the answer C which says "example that is not INconsistent". I read it first as "not consistent". So if "inconsistent" is not misspelled, then C is wrong.

Then A is probably the right answer, but I do not see any specific appeal to authority. Probably, that's an Idiom that I am not aware of :)
I will google it.


Hi happyinlove505

"Appeal to authority" is a LSAT term rather than GMAT's.
I found a topic about "logical fallacies" for you. I bet you can learn a lot form that topic. Please see link below:
a-logical-fallacy-is-an-error-of-reasoning-it-either-has-40345.html

Best.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 54
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2013, 02:42
1
pqhai wrote:
happyinlove505 wrote:
Hello pqhai,

thank you for the explanation, but I still think that C is the right choice while I do not think that A is the right choice.

Why I see C correct is because B talks about confidence (or probability) and S talks about actual case.
I'll try to provide Analogous example, not sure if it is good although:
B: Today's Real-Barcelona match is the first one to not have a true favorite.
S: That is not true. Those teams played 10 times this year and Barcelona won 7 games.

However, now I reread the answer C which says "example that is not INconsistent". I read it first as "not consistent". So if "inconsistent" is not misspelled, then C is wrong.

Then A is probably the right answer, but I do not see any specific appeal to authority. Probably, that's an Idiom that I am not aware of :)
I will google it.


Hi happyinlove505

"Appeal to authority" is a LSAT term rather than GMAT's.
I found a topic about "logical fallacies" for you. I bet you can learn a lot form that topic. Please see link below:
a-logical-fallacy-is-an-error-of-reasoning-it-either-has-40345.html

Best.

Thank you so much for that. I will read that topic :)
Retired Moderator
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 816
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: LBS MIF '19
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2015, 04:45
1
Very though!

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: That's simply untrue. 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.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?

A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Seems the correct one, although I am not quite sure. Does "authority" refer to Siegfried's parents? Then that's the one. A bit tricky for non-natives.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
No. Siegfried is relying on experienced values from his parents. So he does not assume anything but the future trend.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
Clearly out.

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
Looks also tempting, but Siegfried does rely on past events.

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
The reasoning of Siegfried includes no correlation. It is just a reasoning based on past data. So that's why this one is out.

Opinions?
Retired Moderator
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 816
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: LBS MIF '19
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2015, 12:34
1
2
I found some good explanation:

Here Brunhilda generalizes that her generation will be the first that will not enjoy a better standard of living than their parents. Siegfried disagrees and points out that he lives better than his parents do and his parents do not live as well as their parents did before them. To him, his own personal experience disproves Brunhilda's argument. (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. (C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. (D) is incorrect because Siegfried's argument is based upon current and past realities (his standard of living, his parents', and his grandparents'), not upon "unproven speculation about future events." (E) is wrong because Siegfried does not argue a causal relationship at all. He does not attempt to explain what causes the difference in standard of living between him and his parents. He just uses that standard of living difference as an example to dispute Brunhilda.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 23 Feb 2013
Posts: 29
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2014, 07:38
pdhai, your explanation is awesome in multiple levels. Thanks so much for taking your time out and putting it all out here.

-jeff
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Location: United States
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2014, 16:56
jeffjose wrote:
pdhai, your explanation is awesome in multiple levels. Thanks so much for taking your time out and putting it all out here.

-jeff


Dear Jeff

Thank you so much. I hope you enjoy the club.

Best!

Pqhai
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 191
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2014, 00:17
The "appeal to authority " term stumped , even though once I got the meaning , I was pretty clear. Can such LSAT specific terms appear in GMAT ?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2015
Posts: 6
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2015, 05:37
if this came on test day i would have chosen D. then again i m a non native as well so might be wrong
GMAT Club Bot
Re: #Top150 CR: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation   [#permalink] 21 Oct 2015, 05:37

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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