Last visit was: 12 Jul 2024, 16:42 It is currently 12 Jul 2024, 16:42
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.

# Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94302
Own Kudos [?]: 640178 [23]
Given Kudos: 84576
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [6]
Given Kudos: 64
GPA: 3.47
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2017
Posts: 129
Own Kudos [?]: 51 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Wat? i donut get it
Someone watered my plants. Miller did not water my plants because he was not at my house.
Criticize the reasoning - maybe more than 1 person watered my plants.
Manager
Joined: 29 Mar 2015
Posts: 85
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [0]
Given Kudos: 1962
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.1
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note. Ordinarily I would suspect Miller, who has always been jealous of me, but the handwriting is not hers. So the joker is apparently someone else.

Which one of the following provides the strongest grounds for criticizing Franklin’s reasoning?

(A) It fails to consider the possibility that there was more than one practical joker.

(B) It fails to indicate the degree to which handwriting samples should look alike in order to be considered of the same source.

(C) It provides no explanation for why Miller should be the prime suspect.

(D) It provides no explanation for why only one piece of evidence was obtained.

(E) It takes for granted that if the handwriting on the note had been Miller’s, then the identity of the joker would have been ascertained to be Miller.

Hi kindly provide official explanation of the solution.
because IMO OA should have been E
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 303 [0]
Given Kudos: 222
GPA: 3
Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
Can't get over the fact that E is WRONG!
How would considering that somebody could easily have forged Miller's signature be OUT OF SCOPE?
Sure, the Conclusion says it isn't Miller, but how can you rule out the fact that it takes for granted the possibility of somebody could forge a signature?

Originally posted by sharathnair14 on 29 Jul 2019, 13:51.
Last edited by sharathnair14 on 29 Jul 2019, 13:57, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 303 [0]
Given Kudos: 222
GPA: 3
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
Calling GMATNinja carcass egmat mikemcgarry to answer!

E seems like the right answer (and obviously, a GMAT CR Trap!) but why A though too, please!
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 303 [0]
Given Kudos: 222
GPA: 3
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
This question needs an Expert !
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 303 [1]
Given Kudos: 222
GPA: 3
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I think this Question needs a statement that best criticizes the argument.
Stronger the criticism, likelier the option is correct.

Between A & E, I initially thought that E was the answer because it does seem as though the author takes for granted that handwriting cannot be forged. And in the absence of a better choice, this would be the right answer.

A, I feel must be the better choice because the author is convinced that the prankster was Miller. Just because she is jealous, she is suspected. But, to the surprise of the author, the prankster is APPARENTLY someone else. The word Apparent, in my opinion, is key here. This shows that the author was indeed not expecting the prankster to be someone else. In the author's ideal world, the prankster is one and only one person, just because of the Jealousy.

Its like one of those climax scenes in the movies. The lead character is trying to solve a mystery, and is convinced that the culprit is his nemesis/enemy, WHY? Because of the rivalry/hate/jealousy, which is by NO means a piece of reliable evidence. But, the character then finds out the culprit isn't the nemesis to his/her surprise, because of solid evidence found in the form of a weapon used to attack the victim that belongs to someone else. The criticism of the character's thought would be that he/she only assumed the culprit to be the nemesis until he/she found evidence that suggested otherwise, to his/her surprise.
I apologize that I couldn't find a movie's climax that accurately depicts this, but I'm sure you get the point.
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1731
Own Kudos [?]: 5897 [4]
Given Kudos: 3113
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
This is a classic LSAT trick that plays on conditionality. For those who got this wrong and are stumped, know that this is not only above and beyond the GMAT, but is a decently challenging question for most LSAT takers.

(E) is wrong because it is a reverse of our claim. The statement in our argument says: Not M’s hand writing —> Not M.

Option (E) says: M’s handwriting —> M.

The proper negation of the argument is: M —> M’s handwriting. You simply reverse the signs and placement of the conditions. (E) keeps them in the same place, but reversed the signs. This is a mistaken negation, and that is why although it sounds correct, it is 100% wrong. Here is an example: If Jack goes to the party, then Ben goes to the party. If I say Jack isn’t going, we cannot say that Ben isn’t going. We just know that the condition that required him to go no longer exists. Ben is free to do whatever he wants. But the argument says that this is proof that if Jack doesn’t go, then Ben doesn’t go.

(A) is correct for the reason that you probably thought (E) was correct. The argument just says we have the handwriting. But isn’t that flimsy evidence? Couldn’t it be that there were two pranksters and one wrote the note while the other did the prank? Couldn’t it be that someone is trying to frame Miller? Both of these situations weaken the argument.

Posted from my mobile device
Current Student
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 83
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [1]
Given Kudos: 133
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 2.8
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note. Ordinarily I would suspect Miller, who has always been jealous of me, but the handwriting is not hers. So the joker is apparently someone else.

Which one of the following provides the strongest grounds for criticizing Franklin’s reasoning?

(A) It fails to consider the possibility that there was more than one practical joker.

(B) It fails to indicate the degree to which handwriting samples should look alike in order to be considered of the same source.

(C) It provides no explanation for why Miller should be the prime suspect.

(D) It provides no explanation for why only one piece of evidence was obtained.

(E) It takes for granted that if the handwriting on the note had been Miller’s, then the identity of the joker would have been ascertained to be Miller.

i go this question right because i watch impractical jokers.
Manager
Joined: 28 Nov 2020
Posts: 116
Own Kudos [?]: 26 [0]
Given Kudos: 96
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
yeah it was fairly obvious that the handwriting was the key to solving the problem
A- yes it's possiblity that the note was written by someonelse and prank played by Miller
B- however the handwriting could have been varied maybe it was a bold handwriting fairly distinctive
C-it does provide premise that Miller was jealous
D- there was only one evidence so nothing could be done
E- Yes it would have or not it's not certain probably however it stated that the suspicions just might increase

therefore IMO A
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 266
Own Kudos [?]: 275 [0]
Given Kudos: 161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note. Ordinarily I would suspect Miller, who has always been jealous of me, but the handwriting is not hers. So the joker is apparently someone else.

Which one of the following provides the strongest grounds for criticizing Franklin’s reasoning?

(A) It fails to consider the possibility that there was more than one practical joker.

(B) It fails to indicate the degree to which handwriting samples should look alike in order to be considered of the same source.

(C) It provides no explanation for why Miller should be the prime suspect.

(D) It provides no explanation for why only one piece of evidence was obtained.

(E) It takes for granted that if the handwriting on the note had been Miller’s, then the identity of the joker would have been ascertained to be Miller.

Option A is written in such a manner that we tend to label it as incorrect in the first go.
Option E is a trap answer. The author NEVER indicates that if the handwriting on the note had been Miller’s, then the identity of the joker would have been ascertained to be Miller. All author says is that since the handwriting is not Miller's, Miller is ruled out.
But there may be more than one Jokers! Miller might have made someone else write the note!

Tutor
Joined: 04 Jun 2021
Posts: 75
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 13
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
Bunuel wrote:
Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note. Ordinarily I would suspect Miller, who has always been jealous of me, but the handwriting is not hers. So the joker is apparently someone else.

Which one of the following provides the strongest grounds for criticizing Franklin’s reasoning?

(A) It fails to consider the possibility that there was more than one practical joker.

(B) It fails to indicate the degree to which handwriting samples should look alike in order to be considered of the same source.

(C) It provides no explanation for why Miller should be the prime suspect.

(D) It provides no explanation for why only one piece of evidence was obtained.

(E) It takes for granted that if the handwriting on the note had been Miller’s, then the identity of the joker would have been ascertained to be Miller.

(E) is a very tricky wrong answer. “Takes for granted” can be rephrased as “believe”.

Does the author BELIEVE that “if the handwriting on the note had been Miller’s, then the identity of the joker would have been ascertained to be Miller?” NOPE!

All we know about the authors belief in this situation is where the hand writing on the note had NOT been Miller’s.

How do we know this for sure? The answer involves a type of logic that according to those who study the history of logic, wasn’t understood until about 130 years ago.

A basic paraphrase of the original argument: IF the handwriting was not Miller’s THEN the joker must have been someone else.

This if/then structure can be called formal logic, with some interesting “rules”.

We know that IF it rains THEN the ground is wet. So which of the following is a logical deduction from this statement?

If the ground is wet then it rains. NOPE

If it does not rain then the ground is not wet. NOPE

If the ground is not wet, then it’s not raining. YUP

The last sentence above is known as the contrapositive, which is the only deduction that could be made from a conditional (if/then) statement. Anything else is NOT inferable from an if/then statement.

NOTE: some conditional statements, known as the biconditional, can go in the “opposite direction”. These are essentially definitions.

For example: IF I’m outside THEN I’m not inside (by definition). Thus all of the following are logical deductions from the statement/definition:

IF I’m not inside, THEN I’m outside.

IF I’m not outside, THEN I’m inside.

IF I’m inside THEN I’m not outside.

For those of you struggling with this concept, you’re in good company. Mathematicians like Euclid & Fermat and philosophers like Aristotle & Descartes were apparently clueless about this type of logic.

In the end, for E, best to ask: does the author believe this to be true? NOPE.

Posted from my mobile device
VP
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 1047
Own Kudos [?]: 396 [0]
Given Kudos: 645
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
MartyMurray would you like to explain why E is wrong? and A is right?

Posted from my mobile device
Re: Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical jok [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6979 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
821 posts