|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
72% (01:55) correct
28%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 133
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Chief Judge: The director of the Ethics and Fair play Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of sports bookies caught demonstrate that sports betting is no longer prevalent. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever--increasing rate at which petty thiefs are being run down demonstrates a level of safety to the public. The real cause of the increasedbookies caught is a greater efficiency in using technologies that detect malpractices.
Which of the following strategies is used in the presentation of the Chief Judge’s position?
(A) Questioning the motives of an opponent
(B) Showing that an opposing position is self-- contradictory
(C) Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy
(D) Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data
(E) Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal
Which of the following strategies is used in the presentation of the Chief Judge’s position?
(A) Questioning the motives of an opponent
(B) Showing that an opposing position is self-- contradictory
(C) Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy
(D) Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data
(E) Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal
30 Dec 2018, 00:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Nikhitaarorah
Is this question from the CR powerscore Bible Nikhitaarorah ?
Could you provide the official explanation please?
30 Dec 2018, 00:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: The conclusion of the Chief Judge is that the argument that the director of the Ethics and Fair play Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of sports bookies caught demonstrate that sports betting is no longer prevalent is invalid.
A)Questioning the motives of an opponent
No opponent motive is present in the argument; furthermore, the Chief Judge do not attempt to question any such motive.
B)Showing that an opposing position is self-contradictory
The opposing position of the director of the Ethics and Fair play Authority is NOT self-contradictory.
C)Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy
Indeed, the Chief Judge draws an analogy between the increases in the number of sports bookies and the increasing rate at which petty thieves are being run down.
D)Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data
The Chief Judge do not demonstrate the inaccuracy of any data. Instead, he or she questions the assumptions in the argument of the director of the Ethics and Fair play Authority.
E)Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal
The Chief Judge do not point any adverse consequences of a proposal. More importantly, no proposal is present in the argument.
A)Questioning the motives of an opponent
No opponent motive is present in the argument; furthermore, the Chief Judge do not attempt to question any such motive.
B)Showing that an opposing position is self-contradictory
The opposing position of the director of the Ethics and Fair play Authority is NOT self-contradictory.
C)Attacking an argument through the use of an analogy
Indeed, the Chief Judge draws an analogy between the increases in the number of sports bookies and the increasing rate at which petty thieves are being run down.
D)Demonstrating the inaccuracy of certain data
The Chief Judge do not demonstrate the inaccuracy of any data. Instead, he or she questions the assumptions in the argument of the director of the Ethics and Fair play Authority.
E)Pointing out adverse consequences of a proposal
The Chief Judge do not point any adverse consequences of a proposal. More importantly, no proposal is present in the argument.
