Last visit was: 03 Sep 2026, 23:17 It is currently 03 Sep 2026, 23:17
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
nonameee
User avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Last visit: 30 Sep 2013
Posts: 475
Own Kudos:
424
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 475
Kudos: 424
Can a conclusion be based on a flawed premise, especially 08 Jul 2011, 00:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
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.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
ranjithreloaded
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 11
Given Kudos: 2
Status:wanted to change the world after college… then realized, maybe i will stick to earning some money!!!
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GPA: 3.1
Posts: 11
Kudos: 0
Can a conclusion be based on a flawed premise, especially 08 Jul 2011, 01:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nonameee
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.
User avatar
nonameee
User avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2010
Last visit: 30 Sep 2013
Posts: 475
Own Kudos:
424
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 475
Kudos: 424
Can a conclusion be based on a flawed premise, especially 08 Jul 2011, 01:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
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.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts