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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep....
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Can a conclusion be based on a flawed premise, especially when the premise is a sub-conclusion.
For example, in the following stimulus (taken from PowerScore Critical Reasoning Bible), the main conclusion ("However, this characteristic is actually quite common.") is supported by several premises including a sub-conclusion ("Thus plankton cause the surface of the earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton."). I believe that the sub-conclusion is flawed because there's the speaker didn't proved that the cooler surface of the earth benefits the plankton.
Here's the stimulus:
It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environmentt in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common. Certain species of plankton, for example generate a gas that is converted in the atmosphere into particles of sulphate. These particles cause water vapor to condense,thus forming clouds. Indeed, the formation of clouds over the ocean largely depends on the presense of these particles.More cloud cover means more sunlight is reflected, and so the earth absorbs less heat.Thus plankton cause the surface of the earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.
Thank you.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Can a conclusion be based on a flawed premise, especially when the premise is a sub-conclusion.
For example, in the following stimulus (taken from PowerScore Critical Reasoning Bible), the main conclusion ("However, this characteristic is actually quite common.") is supported by several premises including a sub-conclusion ("Thus plankton cause the surface of the earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton."). I believe that the sub-conclusion is flawed because there's the speaker didn't proved that the cooler surface of the earth benefits the plankton.
Here's the stimulus:
It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environmentt in ways that aid their own survival. However, this characteristic is actually quite common. Certain species of plankton, for example generate a gas that is converted in the atmosphere into particles of sulphate. These particles cause water vapor to condense,thus forming clouds. Indeed, the formation of clouds over the ocean largely depends on the presense of these particles.More cloud cover means more sunlight is reflected, and so the earth absorbs less heat.Thus plankton cause the surface of the earth to be cooler and this benefits the plankton.
Thank you.
Show more
Hi Nonameee, Yes conclusion can be based on a flawed premise. I think when solve a weaken CR question what we intend to do is to prove the conclusion is based on a flawed or insufficient premise by choosing an addition premise from the options given. And in the stimulus you have given, it says “Certain species of plankton” but then conclusion is generalized and is flawed. I hope I have answered to what you have asked.
Ranjith, thanks for your reply. You're right. Actually, I've been investigating this question myself and what I have found out is that, as you said, a conclusion can be based on flawed premises. In fact, premises must ALWAYS be considered to be TRUE on the GMAT.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.