Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
16 Dec 2010, 10:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
25% (01:32) correct
75%
(02:15)
wrong
based on 4
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Gambler: The odds of rolling a three with a fair die is one out of six. If I roll two dice, I double my opportunities to roll a three, because on a roll of two dice, the chances of rolling at least one three are two out of six, and if I roll three dice the odds increase to three of six, and so on. My odds keep increasing until I roll six dice, and then I’ll definitely have my three.
Mathematician: Your conclusion cannot be valid, since it would mean that it is impossible to roll six dice without rolling a three.
Which of the following argumentative strategies is used by the mathematician in response to the gambler?
undermining the gambler’s credibility by questioning his understanding of mathematics
arguing that the theory derived by the gambler would lead to an absurdly false conclusion
calling the validity of the gambler’s initial premise into question
stating a general principle that contradicts the gambler’s conclusion
pointing out, at what juncture, the gambler went wrong in his calculation
Mathematician: Your conclusion cannot be valid, since it would mean that it is impossible to roll six dice without rolling a three.
Which of the following argumentative strategies is used by the mathematician in response to the gambler?
undermining the gambler’s credibility by questioning his understanding of mathematics
arguing that the theory derived by the gambler would lead to an absurdly false conclusion
calling the validity of the gambler’s initial premise into question
stating a general principle that contradicts the gambler’s conclusion
pointing out, at what juncture, the gambler went wrong in his calculation
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
16 Dec 2010, 13:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Shrive555,
It would be more useful if you add the answers later after some discussions.
The only two choices which appealed me were B and D.
I selected B because :
i). "arguing" vs "stating". Here the Mathematician is arguing by answering the Gambler that his conclusion is invalid.
ii). The theory proposed by the gambler leads to the impossible conclusion : that he will get 3 no matter what.
iii). The Mathematician never states any general principle - as suggested in D.
Thanks
It would be more useful if you add the answers later after some discussions.
The only two choices which appealed me were B and D.
I selected B because :
i). "arguing" vs "stating". Here the Mathematician is arguing by answering the Gambler that his conclusion is invalid.
ii). The theory proposed by the gambler leads to the impossible conclusion : that he will get 3 no matter what.
iii). The Mathematician never states any general principle - as suggested in D.
Thanks
16 Dec 2010, 16:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Great question, Shrive - maybe I like it because it blends GMAT Critical Reasoning with GMAT Probability...it's a Verbal question that includes GMAT quant!
I agree with anshumishra - and I'll point out that when questions ask for a description of logic, the most popular wrong answers are "partially correct" and therefore tempting. You need the right answer to be 100% correct. A for example, is halfway right - he does undermine the gambler's credibility, but not by questioning his knowledge of math but rather by pointing out an absurd conclusion that would result from his point.
I agree with anshumishra - and I'll point out that when questions ask for a description of logic, the most popular wrong answers are "partially correct" and therefore tempting. You need the right answer to be 100% correct. A for example, is halfway right - he does undermine the gambler's credibility, but not by questioning his knowledge of math but rather by pointing out an absurd conclusion that would result from his point.
