|
|
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.
09 Oct 2013, 16:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Reinfrank2011
Great question.
Again, we have
Premise: P is found with Q (P is correlated with Q)
Conclusion: P causes Q
Of course, the error is the unsubstantiated jump from correlation to causality.
The OA, (B), essentially says "the cause of P is correlated with the cause of Q"
First of all, we don't know why this would be true, but we don't have to --- we take premises and statements in answer choices as fait accompli, beyond question. So, suppose (B) is true, for whatever reason. What would be the logical consequences of (B)?
Notice, also: we don't repeat the mistake at a higher level --- there is absolutely no reason to move from statement (B) to the totally illogical statement "the cause of P causes the cause of Q". That would be disastrously illogical, but that's an absolutely unnecessary step, irrelevant to the argument involved with this choice.
Here's the logic --- if the cause of P is correlated with the cause of Q, this means, where one is found, we will tend to find the other. In the many situations in which the two are found together, then the cause of P will cause P, and, separately, the cause of Q will cause Q, and therefore P and Q will be found together. In other situations, in which both are absent, then the absence of this cause of P will make P less likely to occur, and the absence of this cause of Q will make Q less likely to occur, and thus we will have an elevated likelihood of scenarios in which the absence of P and the absence of Q concur. Thus, on both counts, this statement would create conditions in which P & Q are correlated, and this would be an alternate explanation ---- i.e. how P & Q could be correlated even though P has absolutely nothing to do with causing Q.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
semwal
Current Student
Joined: 04 May 2013
Last visit: 13 May 2017
Posts: 202
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
27 Dec 2013, 10:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
B for me though E is also confusing....
plumber250
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Last visit: 21 Dec 2015
Posts: 213
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
28 Dec 2013, 09:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Semwal,
As others have pointed out E is actually a strengthener.
GMAT loves to do this sort of thing, put in lots of negatives to try and confuse you.
When this happens you need to be super logical, take a little more time and work through the sentence phrase by phrase. This way you work out what is the negative of what, and will give you a clear sense of the meaning.
James
As others have pointed out E is actually a strengthener.
GMAT loves to do this sort of thing, put in lots of negatives to try and confuse you.
When this happens you need to be super logical, take a little more time and work through the sentence phrase by phrase. This way you work out what is the negative of what, and will give you a clear sense of the meaning.
James
