Editorial: History has shown that even though politicians promise that

Question

Editorial: History has shown that even though politicians promise that the profits from a lottery will be devoted to educational purposes, the funds are inevitably redirected to other purposes that have nothing to do with education. Therefore, our representatives in the state legislature should not support the proposed lottery because they will inevitably break their promise to use the profits to fund education and direct the funds elsewhere.

The reasoning above is flawed because it

(A) draws a conclusion about a specific population based on a study of a larger population

(B) uses historical data to draw incorrect conclusions about a similar situation in the future

(C) presupposes that a pattern of behavior under one set of conditions will recur under a completely different set of conditions

(D) rejects a proposed solution based on the track record of an altogether different solution

(E) assails a proposed lottery by attacking those who support it rather than the merits of the proposed lottery

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer: A

STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task. 
This is a Flaw question. It is asking for the flaw in a complete-the-sentence form.

STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind. 
Find the logical flaw that leads the editorialist to believe that the politicians will redirect the funds away from education.

STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for. 
The statement asserts that because politicians in general have betrayed the purpose of the lottery that the current legislature will do the same. You will look for something similar in your answer options.

STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice.  
Answer A states that the argument draws a conclusion about a specific population (“our representatives in the state legislature”) based on a study of a larger population (“politicians”). This would seem to describe the editorialist’s mistake perfectly, but you should read through the rest of the answers to make sure. Answer B might look good, but the statements do not mention any historical data. It only makes general historical statements. Answer A remains the stronger answer. Answer C is incorrect because you do not know the conditions, historical or current, but even so, the current option on the table, a public lottery to support education, is the same. Both the historical politicians and the current legislature are considering the same solution, so answer D cannot be correct. None of the statements attacks the supporters or the merits of the lottery, only the resulting malfeasance once it is approved, so answer E cannot be the correct choice. The correct choice is answer A.

gullyboy09 · Answer

KarishmaB , can you help me with this question? I was confused between A and B, eventually chose A as B talks about conclusionS, whereas we have only one conclusion. Is there any other reason we can use to reject B? One more I can think is that is it really a "incorrect" conclusion? Argument is flawed, but not sure we can say conclusion is incorrect. Conclusions are generally not incorrect as they are not an inference. Rather issue here is how we arrived at this conclusion.

Above explanation says it does not mention historical data, but from "History has shown" we can reasonably say that based on historical data, so I wanna know right reason for the rejection of B.

KarishmaB · Answer

The question is hard and too technical for GMAT purpose. 
Options (A) and (B) both look good.

(A) draws a conclusion about a specific population based on a study of a larger population

(B) uses historical data to draw incorrect conclusions about a similar situation in the future

In fact, (B) looks better but is incorrect. Why?

Because the conclusions drawn:

Intermediate conclusion: they will inevitably break their promise to use the profits to fund education and direct the funds elsewhere
Main conclusion: our representatives should not support the proposed lottery

cannot be called correct or incorrect. They are the author's opinion on what will happen in the future. There is no correct or incorrect in it. Whether it was the right call to take will become clear in the future only. Hence we cannot say that the argument draws incorrect conclusions.

(A) is fine since the author does draw a conclusion about a specific population (current politicians) based on a study of a larger population (all politicians in the past)

Answer (A)

egmat · Answer

Hi gullyboy09,

You're right to be suspicious of the official reason. "History has shown"  does  signal historical data, so "the statements do not mention historical data" is a weak way to knock out B. Let me give you the reasons that actually hold.

Reason 1 - B describes valid reasoning, not a flaw.  Look at B's own words: "uses historical data to draw incorrect conclusions about a  similar  situation in the future." Using past data to predict a  similar  future situation is exactly how sound inductive reasoning works. If the situations really are similar, there's no flaw at all. So B, as worded, doesn't name a reasoning error - it describes something that would normally be legitimate. A choice that describes good reasoning can't be the flaw.

Reason 2 - you nailed the deeper point yourself.  In a Flaw question we're asked  how the argument reasons badly , not whether its conclusion turns out true or false. B says the conclusion is "incorrect," which mislabels the task - the problem isn't the conclusion's truth value, it's the leap used to reach it. Your instinct here is stronger than the "conclusionS vs. conclusion" plural point, which is really just a coincidence of wording, not the core issue.

Reason 3 - B points at the wrong gap.  The real flaw is a scope jump: from  politicians in general  (larger population) to  our state representatives  (specific population). That's what A captures. B blames "future" and "similar situation," but the timing and similarity aren't where the argument breaks.

Turn one word to feel it:  if B read "...about a  different  situation in the future," it would suddenly describe a real gap - you'd be applying a past pattern where it may not fit. With " similar ," that objection disappears, and B collapses into normal reasoning. That single word is what kills it.

Answer: A

Editorial: History has shown that even though politicians promise that

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

Editorial: History has shown that even though politicians promise that

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