GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 26 Apr 2019, 09:33

### 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

# From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 210
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Dec 2010, 20:08
1
8
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (01:36) correct 60% (01:51) wrong based on 368 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

I don't understand why OA is correct

This question is from grockit

_________________
If you like my post, consider giving me some KUDOS !!!!! Like you I need them
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1070
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2012, 23:01
2
3
The conclusion is: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak

In the logical flaw type questions, we must remember one thing:
Any answer choice that describes information or a situation that does not occur in the stimulus is incorrect.
Nowhere we are told anything about "smart peasants". So we can't speculate anything about them. Hence E is wrong here.

A makes a necessary condition into a sufficient one, exaggerating a lot. We can't be so sure that it was the only reason.

B chooses the middle path, mentions the peasants with intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits better than others.
It presents an objection to the conclusion that without considering these peasants, how can one say that it was the best for peasants to remain weak.

hope that helps
_________________
##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 69
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2010, 01:43
1
saxenashobhit wrote:
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

I don't understand why OA is correct

This question is from grockit

if they dont want to die soon, the peasants had better be weak to live longer.
the assumtion should be " being weak helps the peasants live longer" which is A
i also dont understand why A is correct.
are you sure this is the correct answer choice from the grockit book?
Manager
Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 195
Location: Uzbekistan
Schools: Johnson, Fuqua, Simon, Mendoza
WE 3: 10
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2011, 00:08
a flaw in the argument is that not being enlisted into the army is the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer. In the premise there is no proper explanation why it is the only factor thereof and therefore it allows to ssume that there may be alternative reasons for longer live of peasants. Hence, IMO A.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 82
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2011, 22:01
A-autor is making choice on both extremes.If in army,them pople don't live long.
If not in army,the may be great chance of live longer,but if they are not in army (because they are weak) then they are too weak to earn for living.and may be die in poverty.they can't do work because lack in strength.
B- sees the possibility that there must be other guys who are weak enough to not to be in army,but strong enough to make earning. this is correct choice
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
Posts: 348
Location: Texas
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2011, 22:34
in the test, i will definately choose A. i still do not understand how is B stronger... its comparing 2 different categories of people... and asking what is flaw here.

in my opinion, introducing 3rd category does not justify the flaw.
Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4274
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2012, 11:56
just came across this in the grock
pretty confusing
_________________
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 15 Dec 2012, 04:44
1
3
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span.

What is the logical flaw presented in the argument?

It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

It overlooks the possibility that strong peasants were often targeted and killed by the local aristocracy for fear that they might lead a peasant uprising.

The argument takes for granted that smart peasants knew how to make themselves appear weak when the army recruiters came through town.

Originally posted by Archit143 on 13 Dec 2012, 14:07.
Last edited by Archit143 on 15 Dec 2012, 04:44, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 14:09
The source of the question is Grockit and the answer will follow very soon...Pls present your thoughts with clear reasoning.
It will be appreciated if someone mentions why an option which he terms is out of scope.
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2012, 14:42
I feel that Assumption which is accepted on GMAT for these questions is that these weaker peasents know how to pretend to be weak. There may be few stronger peasents also who pretend to be weak because they do not want to join army and get subjected to harsh life and have short life span.

Hence I think E is a strong contender but it cannot be denied that A is also appealing...
Can some one explain what should be our step for finding a logical flaw question.
Here is what i think:-
Find a reasoning error that is it and compare it with the options.

So reasoning error here is not to join army because the commanders subject to harsh life and hence may shorten the life span. Flaw here is These pretending weaker peasants may die of some road accident, malnutrition, cardiac instances for instances. So why only blame Army<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

The same line of reason is presented in A, Hence it is also strong contender..

Do not know which one to select ...pls help A, E or the OA (B)
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:15
A It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:36
As per Powersccore CR bible, New elements are not considered correct answers in such questions.
Inttermediate strength is toally new and we do not know that even these people are enlisted in the army. Than how can they be convinced.

but yes to extent it is better than logic of Smart peasents but A i still think is the best answer choice.
Intern
Status: Winning is not everything, but wanting to win is
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 26
WE 1: IT Consultant (6Yr)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:39
Archit143 wrote:
A It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.

Hi Archit

When i read the question and the answer choices i felt the three contenders could be A,B & E here but i eliminated B & E on the basis that nothing regarding the intermediate peasent and smart peasant is made in the argument and would be more of a bringing outside knowledge to the scope of the answers.

Hence i feel strongly about A with the reasons mentioned by you.

Thanks
Jatin
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1070
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:41
Archit143 wrote:
As per Powersccore CR bible, New elements are not considered correct answers in such questions.
Inttermediate strength is toally new and we do not know that even these people are enlisted in the army. Than how can they be convinced.

but yes to extent it is better than logic of Smart peasents but A i still think is the best answer choice.

Yes peasants with intermediate strength is new information, but the idea of the strength is not new; it has been discussed in the stimulus.
A is a strong contender but it loses the battle in that it exaggerates.
_________________
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:47
Hi Marcab

The use of word "Only" can be a justification for the option to be trmed as exaggerated but its clearly mentioned in the book that. Option cannot be eliminate solely on its wordings.
The idea needs to checked...Which i thnk is completely justified. If you negate the assumption which it is stating than the option conclusion is destroyed.

A or B????????????????
Director
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 864
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 05:48
jsahni123 wrote:
Archit143 wrote:
A It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

Considering Necessary and Sufficient reasoning for the argument , we get the following result
Necessary (Strong Peasent Or Enlisted in the army)------------------->Sufficient (short Life span)

As per A: Factor helping weak peasents to live longer is not enlisted in the army i.e. Since weak peasents are not strong they are not enlisted in the army, hence they can live longer...
It maintains the necessary and sufficient condition mentioned in the argument....So we cannot eliminate the option choice basis on the above reasoning.

i think its an assumption for sure made in the argument that If weak peasants donot join army they will live longe because if we negate it, the conclusion cannot stand on stand. Hence I still think A is a strong contender.

Hi Archit

When i read the question and the answer choices i felt the three contenders could be A,B & E here but i eliminated B & E on the basis that nothing regarding the intermediate peasent and smart peasant is made in the argument and would be more of a bringing outside knowledge to the scope of the answers.

Hence i feel strongly about A with the reasons mentioned by you.

Thanks
Jatin

I second your thought and that is what i am contending.....
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1070
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 06:14
Okay.
On negation, A becomes: "The fact that they were not enlisted into the army was not the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer".
The conclusion is:"it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak".
Does it really destroys the argument? Not really. What if the other ways were better, then in such case it won't destroy BUT if the other ways were not better, then in such case it will destroy".
_________________
Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Posts: 10
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 13:31
Also chose A but got wrong. What if being week reduces ones lifespan and long term surviving skills thus rendering short? So simply by not going to army and remaining weak doesnt necessarily guarantee long survival
Intern
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 5
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jul 2013, 09:53
the key to cracking this question is understanding the importance of "best"- it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. for ex. if an argument claims that "A" is the "best" way to crack gmat, then a way to weaken this argument is to contend that "B" is a better way to crack gmat. the same thing is happening here. the question says t hat being weak is the "best" way to survive, and we are negating the argument by stating that "moderate strenghth" is better than being weak.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1006
Location: United States
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2013, 01:22
3
1
Quote:
From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

Frankly, I love this question. B is correct.

This question uses a very classical logic "if-then" + "Logical Opposition"

The form is:
If A, then B
Conclusion: if C, then Not B
Assumption: C is a logical opposition of A

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Hypothesis: IF strong peasants in Czarist Russia (CR) go into army, THEN they will have shorter life spans.
Conclusion: IF peasants in CR are weak, THEN they will have a longer life span.
Assumption of this argument: "WEAK peasants" is a logical opposition of “STRONG peasants”. Is this correct? Nope, It's totally WRONG.

For example: what is the logical opposition of hot?. Most people say "cold". It's wrong. The correct logical opposition of "hot" is "NOT hot".

** This is the same flaw of this argument. The correct logical opposition of “STRONG peasants” is "NOT STRONG peasants". But the argument says "to live longer, peasants should be WEAK". Must they be weak? No, "Not strong" is enough, for instance "intermediate strong".

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.
Wrong. A says: “not go into army” helps WEAK peasants live longer. The fact helps ONLY weak people? How about intermediate strong peasants? The main conclusion is: Not go into army will help peasants (in general) live longer. A may be a correct ans if it say: "the only factor helping WEAK peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army"

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.
Correct. B shows one case of the logical opposition of “strong peasants” ==> "Intermediate strong peasants". B states the argument’s flaw. The argument maintains that strong peasants will have shorter life, thus they should be weak to have longer life. That’s incorrect logic. You just need “NOT STRONG peasants” (for example: intermediate strong, little above weak, etc.) You DO NOT need “WEAK”.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.
Wrong. Definitely out of scope. Nothing about “they have same file span”, the argument just compare “strong” vs “weak” ==> That’s incorrect as stated above.

TAKEAWAY:
Logical Opposition of "X" is "NOT X"

Hope you enjoy this question.
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.
Re: From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for   [#permalink] 07 Jul 2013, 01:22

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by