Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average qualit

Question

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling piece of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential counterevidence.
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish
(D) It relies on the judgement of experts in a matter to which their expertise is irrelevant
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance

fireinbelly · Accepted Answer

Cottrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling piece of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

Well, clearly the author already assumes in the first line that Cottrell is capable of only writing average quality articles. This is the same thing which he is trying to establish by providing some evidence however his evidence is not solid because his evidence is based on his already made-up mind or his supposition about Cottrell being able to write only average quality articles.

(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential counterevidence. -  There is no denying or ignoring of any counter-evidence as such.  
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences. -  We may feel that author did generalize however he did not generalize by mentioning some specific occurence. Infact he mentioned that whatever good quality articles Cottrell has written, must have been copied....so the author kind of says that the opposite of what he generalizes is true because of what he already believes in (that Cottrell is an average writer) 
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish -  Bingo! As soon as you read C, you realize that it hits the nail on the head 
(D) It relies on the judgement of experts in a matter to which their expertise is irrelevant -  No such mention 
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance -  Not even close

Hence C it is!

GMATNinja · Answer

We know from the question stem that the author's argument is vulnerable to criticism (because of one of the reasons in the answer choices). The vulnerability of the argument makes it harder to identify the conclusion. If we knew  for a fact  that Cotrell were, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality, then that would be a premise on which we could base the following conclusion: Cotrell obviously must have plagiarized the superior articles." However, we do not know for a fact whether "Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality." The author is trying to  reach  that conclusion based on the "compelling piece of evidence" presented in the second sentence. But the evidence in the second sentence relies on the  assumption  that Cotrell " is incapable of writing an article that is better than average." In other words, in trying to reach the conclusion that Cotrell is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, the author RELIES on the assumption that Cotrell is incapable of writing an article that is better than average!

The New England Patriots are incapable of winning the Super Bowl. Consider the relatively few times the Patriots  have  won the Super Bowl; obviously the Patriots were cheating when they won those Super Bowls because everybody knows that the Patriots are incapable of winning the Super Bowl!

This argument has the same logical flaw in that it assumes the conclusion is true in order to  argue  that the conclusion is true. The conclusion of the passage is simply the first sentence, "Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality."

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

As always, look closely at the structure of the argument—specifically the relationships between the premises and conclusion. This breakdown presents the pieces in the order given in the argument:

Conclusion: Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Subconclusion/ Premise: The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior.

Premise: Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

Examine the language in the conclusion (“Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality”) and the premise (“Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average”). The two are identical in meaning, and thus we have an argument with circular reasoning. Do not be distracted by the plagiarism argument in the middle of the text—that is a tool used to physically separate the conclusion and premise, making it harder to recognize that the two are identical.

Answer choice (A): The argument does not ignore the potential counterevidence to the conclusion. The potential counterevidence is the few articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, and the author dismisses them by claiming they are plagiarized. Although the reasoning used to dismiss the good articles is flawed, it is an attempt to address the evidence, and thus the argument cannot be said to “simply ignore the existence of potential counterevidence.”

Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an Overgeneralization. The answer is wrong because the argument generalizes by dismissing the atypical occurrences (the superior articles), as opposed to generalizing from them.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, and one of several different ways to describe Circular Reasoning (note that in the first problem in this set Circular Reasoning was an incorrect answer). More often than not, when you see Circular Reasoning it will be an incorrect answer choice, but you cannot be complacent and simply assume it will be wrong every time you see it. This problem proves that it does appear as the correct answer on occasion.

Answer choice (D): This answer describes an Appeal to Authority. The answer fails the Fact Test because there is no reference to the judgment of experts.

Answer choice (E): This answer is similar to answer choice (B). The answer starts out reasonably well— “it infers limits on ability.” The argument does attempt this (depending on your definition of “infer”). But, does the argument make this inference based on a “few isolated lapses in performance?” No, the argument dismisses the few superior performances. In this sense the answer is Half Right, Half Wrong. Therefore, it is incorrect.
_________________

TeamGMATIFY · Answer

The first line of the premise says that "Cottrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality" Hence it assumes this judgement upfront and then gives evidence to prove this judgement.

On looking at the options, only Option C says this. Hence the correct option.

BillyZ · Answer

Cotrell is incapable of writing a better-than-average article. → Cotrell must have plagiarized his few superior articles. → Cotrell can write only low-to-average-quality articles.

Once we break down the core, we can see that the conclusion merely restates the initial premise, without providing additional support - Circular Reasoning!

(A) didn’t happen. The argument cites counterevidence (the few superior articles), but attempts to reframe that counterevidence to support the conclusion. Eliminate it.

(B) didn’t happen. There are “atypical occurrences” mentioned (the superior articles), but rather than generalizing from these occurrences, the author attempts to prove the opposite of what they would imply.

(D) didn’t happen either! There are no experts cited in this argument.

(E) is tempting because the first part of the answer (“ infers limits on ability”) is correct, but this conclusion is not drawn from isolated lapses in performance, but from isolated superior performances. Eliminate it.

Answer choice (C) points out the Circular Reasoning flaw.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average qualit

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average qualit

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards