Last visit was: 24 Jul 2024, 06:01 It is currently 24 Jul 2024, 06:01
Toolkit
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

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.

# Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94605
Own Kudos [?]: 643511 [2]
Given Kudos: 86734
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94605
Own Kudos [?]: 643511 [0]
Given Kudos: 86734
General Discussion
Director
Joined: 29 Apr 2019
Status:Learning
Posts: 729
Own Kudos [?]: 589 [3]
Given Kudos: 49
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4127
Own Kudos [?]: 9465 [1]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri [#permalink]
1
Kudos
This argument is an example of "begging the question" (not in the colloquial sense of "raising the question" but in its true meaning in logic), or of "circular reasoning". The argument says, paraphrasing:

"If we knew every physical detail of a human action, we obviously would not understand it completely. Therefore knowing physical details alone will not let us completely understand a human action."

Rather than provide any evidence that might support the conclusion, the argument's "evidence" just rephrases the conclusion slightly. That's circular reasoning, when an argument assumes what it's trying to prove. Answer B describes the logical error.
Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 976
Own Kudos [?]: 187 [1]
Given Kudos: 309
Re: Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons. As evidence of this, I submit the following: suppose that we had a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some particular human action—every neurological, physiological, and environmental event involved. Even with all that we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument’s reasoning?

(A) No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.
There is no analogy used in the first place , the sentence is merely stating facts and findings that is not properly understood therefore out

(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.
This is the intended reasoning since the outcome of the test results is not taken into account and is explicitly stated therefore let us hang on to it

(C) It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.
The proposition cannot be predicted perfectly is the problem not the authenticity of the same therefore out

(D) It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.
The speaker is well aware of all the nuances and working of the experiment therefore out

(E) It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.
The setence just states the oppposite that science even with all the minute detalis in place xannot accurately decide therefore out

Therefore IMO B
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Posts: 297
Own Kudos [?]: 271 [1]
Given Kudos: 33
Location: United States (NH)
Schools: Wharton '25
WE:Information Technology (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri [#permalink]
1
Kudos
(A) No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.
This is false, as there was no comparison made in the argument. Eliminate.

(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.
This is true, and clearly exposes the flaw of circular reasoning. Keep.

(C) It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.
Argument did not considered proving the proposition to be false. Hence this is false statement and eliminate.

(D) It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.
The statement is true, but this does not expose the flaw in the argument. Eliminate

(E) It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.
This is false as the argument did not presumed this. Eliminate

So the answer choice is B
Re: Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6991 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts