CR Spituralism

Question

Another one

Paul · Answer

I'd go with D also. On the basis of 1 fraudulent case, a whole doctrine is deemed to be false. This is equivalent to saying that because Enron was fraudulent, capitalism itself is a theory for crooks

srijay007 · Answer

I will go with D
C is not correct because, if we assume C is true then we are saying that the evidence that author presents is a lie! This is extreme!!!

dj · Answer

hmmm.. I will go with C.

author demonstrates what he believes in i.e. presupposes what he is gonna prove.
Circular reasoning. I am not sayin that circular reasoning's conclusion is false, but that conclusion can only be true if the (circular) premise is true. We don't have anything to say that the premise is true.

I choose C :roll:

dwivedys · Answer

D for me too folks.

Do we know the OA?

Also DJ I didn't get your argument about Circular reasoning. In fact I didn't get the meaning of "cited evidence presupposes what is to be proved" . I consider this to mean that the cited evidence only PROVES what the author originally PRESUPPOSED about the doctrine. So what is the harm in that? The author presupposed or knew that spiritualism was crap and he cited an evidence which purpotedly proves that it was crap. WHat's wrong with that?

saurya_s · Answer

OA is D as guesses by most.
S

CR Spituralism

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