THE CORRECT ANSWER IS D INDEED

See this analogy:-
The easiest way to get into HARVARD MBA is
1) Prepare for GMAT
2) Score 770+ in GMAT
3) Send application to HARVARD

These 3 are necessary conditions to get in HARVARD MBA, but they are not sufficient enough to guarantee an admission.
What if you score 780 in GMAT but you are only 11 years old and are currently in standard 6 in a school. Can you join HARVARD MBA without a high school or college degree or work experience. NO

So Necessary conditions doesn't means Sufficient condition. They go in both directions and can be often confusing .
For example.
Being a fertile, healthy woman is a necessary condition in order to become pregnant.
But can a woman be pregnant without some sort of sperm donor or a male.
So having a willing, fertile, male to donate sperms is required. Adding that to the list will make our condition sufficient.

In layman's term always remember
NECCESARY CONDITION = (ALL CRITERIAS / RULES/ REQUIREMENTS) BUT NO STILL NO GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS
SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS = GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS

Now the Flat earth president himself says that for a theory to be accepted that theory is :-
(1) First Laughed and
(2) then attacked and opposed,
(3) and then only those other theories that were found to be true
(4) were accepted.

FOUND TO BE TRUE (3) IS A SUFFICIENT CONDITION for acceptance.

In his case, he is being:-
(1) laughed and
(2) attacked and opposed ,
(3) now his theories will be found to be FLASE
(4) and therefore not accepted

SINCE HE DOES NOT FULFILL (3), he will not will be accepted.

SUFFICIENT CONDITION 3 IS NOT BEING FULLFILLED IN THE CASE OF FLAT EARTH'S PRESIDENT CLAIM

THEREFORE D is the CORRECT ANSWER WHICH SAYS THAT - (D) The president mistakes a condition necessary to obtain a result for a condition sufficient to obtain that result.





_________________

+1

Yes why it cannot be "Author is generalizing a typical case"??

targetgmatchotu & btg9788,

In this problem, the president does not generalize any specific/atypical case, rather he is using an accepted aphorism only to prove his claim (narrow in scope)

When you generalize, you extrapolate a certain claim/fact to things wider in scope.
For example:
Fact: Sweater keeps you warm in cold.
Narrow in scope: Its cold in here today, I should wear the sweater.
Generalized: Its cold in here today, everyone must be wearing the sweater.

Similarly in this problem:
Accepted aphorism: Truth passes through three stages: mocked; condemned; and then accepted.
Narrow in scope: President: My claims were mocked first, hence they are deemed to be accepted as truth.
Generalized: President: Everyone whose claims were mocked will soon find their claim accepted as truth.
_________________

Flat Earth Society President: It is an accepted philosophical aphorism that all truth passes through three stages: first, it is mocked; second, it is opposed and condemned; third, it is accepted as self-evident. The central claims of my flat earth society were first mocked and now face ferocious opposition, so it is plain enough that they will shortly be accepted as self-evident.

Which of the following best describes the error in the president’s reasoning?

The evidence presented for the president’s conclusion is irrelevant to that conclusion.
The president generalizes from an atypical case.
The phenomenon introduced by the president in support of his principal contention is not a phenomenon covered by the aphorism supplied.
The president mistakes a condition necessary to obtain a result for a condition sufficient to obtain that result.
The president exploits two meaning of the word “truth.”

I think the error in the president’s reasoning is that he assumes that his central claims of flat earth society were TRUE.
Can this be categorized as mistakes a condition necessary to obtain a result for a condition sufficient to obtain that result. I am not much convinced. I think we better call it:
The president assumes something as truth without proper substantiation. (definitely better worded )
Can somebody strengthen D ?
Thanks.

The president gives an accepted philosophical aphorism and the then claims that the central contentions of the flat earth society will follow the same path. Hence he initially states a condition and then assumes that the given condition will also follow the same track and give the same result. Hence the answer choice is "D".
_________________

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Solution: D

The difficulty in Method of Reasoning questions is usually not in determining what is actually happening in the question, but rather in translating your common sense explanation into the verbiage and jargon the correct answer will supply. It’s always best to come up with a common sense answer first: in this case, that truth is mocked then attacked, but that all things that are mocked and attacked are not necessarily truth. From there, translate your common sense answer into GMATese. Remember necessary and sufficient conditions: a necessary condition is something necessary to bring about a conclusion, but a sufficient condition brings about a conclusion by itself. Mockery and attack don’t guarantee truth, so they aren’t sufficient to guarantee a certain result; (D).
_________________

hi guys here Option A says

''A. The evidence presented for the president’s conclusion is irrelevant to that conclusion.''
i am not able to find out why this one is wrong because here the evidence which president "That Theory" will certainly not help in reaching to the president conclusion.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________