Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Jul 1609:30 AM EDT
-11:30 AM EDT
Is INSEAD your dream b-school and you're looking for solid prep and application strategies to get there? Check out Barkavi’s end-to-end journey to know how she did! Get insights into the INSEAD admissions process, know what Adcoms look at, and more!
Jul 1611:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1410:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
GMAT Preparation Online - A limited time sale use code: EXPERTSGLOBAL10
Jul 1911:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Jul 1911:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
20 Sep 2021, 07:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
65% (01:34) correct
35%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 312
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Columnist: The failure of bicyclists to obey traffic regulations is a causal factor in more than one quarter of the traffic accidents involving bicycles. Since inadequate bicycle safety equipment is also a factor in more than a quarter of such accidents, bicyclists are at least partially responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles.
The columnist’s reasoning is flawed in that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles
(B) improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation
(C) fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident
(D) fails to provide the source of the figures it cites
(E) fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely
The columnist’s reasoning is flawed in that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles
(B) improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation
(C) fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident
(D) fails to provide the source of the figures it cites
(E) fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely
25 Sep 2021, 07:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Columnist: The failure of bicyclists to obey traffic regulations is a causal factor in more than one quarter of the traffic accidents involving bicycles. Since inadequate bicycle safety equipment is also a factor in more than a quarter of such accidents, bicyclists are at least partially responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles.
The columnist’s reasoning is flawed in that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles
(B) improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation
(C) fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident
(D) fails to provide the source of the figures it cites
(E) fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely
The columnist’s reasoning is flawed in that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles
(B) improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation
(C) fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident
(D) fails to provide the source of the figures it cites
(E) fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
No, this is stupid. This logic is like saying, “Fifty-five percent of the class is female, and fifty-five percent of the class is under the age of 30, therefore 110 percent of the class is female and under the age of thirty.” That’s obviously absurd, and what it’s doing is ignoring the overlap—you’re counting quite a few under-thirty females twice in that analysis. Same thing here, with the bikes. How do we know that failure to obey traffic regulations and inadequate safety equipment aren’t both factors in some of the accidents? (Example: The drunken idiot on a bike with no lights, and no reflective gear, who runs a stop sign and gets squished by a UC Davis Unitrans bus.)
We are asked to identify a flaw. My prediction is, “Ignores the potential overlap.”
A) Not what I’m looking for.
B) The argument doesn’t do this, and it’s not what I’m looking for.
C) This answer basically means, “Ignores the possible overlap.” Great answer.
D) Nah, you aren’t required to provide a source for every premise you offer on the LSAT. There’s just not room for all the citations—every argument would be four pages long if they had to go into all that detail.
E) Huh? Severity of injuries is just not at issue here.
Our answer is C, because it’s the worst flaw present in the columnist’s argument.
04 Oct 2021, 10:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Columnist: The failure of bicyclists to obey traffic regulations is a causal factor in more than one quarter of the traffic accidents involving bicycles. Since inadequate bicycle safety equipment is also a factor in more than a quarter of such accidents, bicyclists are at least partially responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles.
The columnist’s reasoning is flawed in that it
The highlighted text is the conclusion(an inference rather). It is based on the two factors elaborated earlier, which seems to not overlap each other as projected.
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles - WRONG. It may be true but we aren't concerned about motorists as a factor.
(B) improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation - WRONG. A trap answer as it uses similar/same words as used in passage. More so for it says that the passage draws an inference which it actually does and for this reason, at first look, it looks a strong contender relative to other choices. Also, what correlation ?? There's none.
(C) fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident - CORRECT. In a way it says that factors can overlap, thus the inference may not be right.
(D) fails to provide the source of the figures it cites - WRONG. We need not to have a source as it is not discussed nor that it would have had any significance.
(E) fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely - WRONG. Severity like source of figures is irrelevant.
Answer C.
The columnist’s reasoning is flawed in that it
The highlighted text is the conclusion(an inference rather). It is based on the two factors elaborated earlier, which seems to not overlap each other as projected.
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles - WRONG. It may be true but we aren't concerned about motorists as a factor.
(B) improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation - WRONG. A trap answer as it uses similar/same words as used in passage. More so for it says that the passage draws an inference which it actually does and for this reason, at first look, it looks a strong contender relative to other choices. Also, what correlation ?? There's none.
(C) fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident - CORRECT. In a way it says that factors can overlap, thus the inference may not be right.
(D) fails to provide the source of the figures it cites - WRONG. We need not to have a source as it is not discussed nor that it would have had any significance.
(E) fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely - WRONG. Severity like source of figures is irrelevant.
Answer C.
