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 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
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.
iabhish1509
11 Jul 2024, 05:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer: E. All professional athletes must undergo regular drug testing; hence, if someone has not undergone drug testing, they must not be a professional athlete.
Our argument has X->Y relationship. That means if,
-> X is true Y will be true.
And if,
->Y is false, X must be false.
Now analysing the options we get that option A, C, E are of this type.
But here we'll choose E because it assumes the only reason for not undergoing drug testing is not being a professional athlete, ignoring other possibilities such as non-compliance or evasion.
The flawed reasoning in the original argument most closely matches the reasoning in option (E).
It has 'must' attached to it that is in the argument. Other options like A and C have 'could'.
Our argument has X->Y relationship. That means if,
-> X is true Y will be true.
And if,
->Y is false, X must be false.
Now analysing the options we get that option A, C, E are of this type.
But here we'll choose E because it assumes the only reason for not undergoing drug testing is not being a professional athlete, ignoring other possibilities such as non-compliance or evasion.
The flawed reasoning in the original argument most closely matches the reasoning in option (E).
It has 'must' attached to it that is in the argument. Other options like A and C have 'could'.
11 Jul 2024, 05:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Since new environmental regulations were enacted last year, factories emitting pollutants above a certain level must install advanced filtration systems. Therefore, any factory that has not installed such a system since last year must be emitting pollutants below the required level.
The reasoning above exhibits a flaw similar to one in which of the following?
A. Any animal classified as a reptile must be cold-blooded, so if an animal is not cold-blooded, it cannot be classified as a reptile.
Reasoning: This statement uses correct logical reasoning. If being a reptile necessarily means being cold-blooded, then not being cold-blooded correctly implies not being a reptile. There is no inverse error here. INCORRECT
B. All licensed drivers must pass a driving test, and since Jorge has passed a driving test, he must be a licensed driver.
Reasoning: This statement has a logical flaw but is not similar to the question statement. The correct reasoning should be that passing a driving test is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a licensed driver (there might be other requirements to be a licensed driver).
INCORRECT
C. A person who is an elected official must reside in the district they represent, so anyone who does not reside in a particular district cannot be an elected official there.
Reasoning: This statement also uses correct logical reasoning. If being an elected official necessarily means residing in the district, then not residing in the district correctly implies not being an elected official. There is no inverse error here. INCORRECT
D. Every person entering the country must go through customs; therefore, the increase in the number of customs agents will necessarily lead to a decrease in the number of people entering the country.
Reasoning: This statement involves an assumption about causality and does not follow the same logical structure as the original argument. It speculates about the effect of an increase in customs agents on the number of people entering the country. It does not have an inverse error. INCORRECT
E. All professional athletes must undergo regular drug testing; hence, if someone has not undergone drug testing, they must not be a professional athlete.
Reasoning: This matches the flawed logic of the original argument. It assumes that if the consequent condition (drug testing) is not met, the antecedent condition (being a professional athlete) is also not met, which is the inverse error. CORRECT
Option E is the correct answer
The reasoning above exhibits a flaw similar to one in which of the following?
A. Any animal classified as a reptile must be cold-blooded, so if an animal is not cold-blooded, it cannot be classified as a reptile.
Reasoning: This statement uses correct logical reasoning. If being a reptile necessarily means being cold-blooded, then not being cold-blooded correctly implies not being a reptile. There is no inverse error here. INCORRECT
B. All licensed drivers must pass a driving test, and since Jorge has passed a driving test, he must be a licensed driver.
Reasoning: This statement has a logical flaw but is not similar to the question statement. The correct reasoning should be that passing a driving test is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a licensed driver (there might be other requirements to be a licensed driver).
INCORRECT
C. A person who is an elected official must reside in the district they represent, so anyone who does not reside in a particular district cannot be an elected official there.
Reasoning: This statement also uses correct logical reasoning. If being an elected official necessarily means residing in the district, then not residing in the district correctly implies not being an elected official. There is no inverse error here. INCORRECT
D. Every person entering the country must go through customs; therefore, the increase in the number of customs agents will necessarily lead to a decrease in the number of people entering the country.
Reasoning: This statement involves an assumption about causality and does not follow the same logical structure as the original argument. It speculates about the effect of an increase in customs agents on the number of people entering the country. It does not have an inverse error. INCORRECT
E. All professional athletes must undergo regular drug testing; hence, if someone has not undergone drug testing, they must not be a professional athlete.
Reasoning: This matches the flawed logic of the original argument. It assumes that if the consequent condition (drug testing) is not met, the antecedent condition (being a professional athlete) is also not met, which is the inverse error. CORRECT
Option E is the correct answer
11 Jul 2024, 06:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
This question is based on a logical extrapolation, which can be generalized as follows:
There’s a criterion -> those who fit it, have to follow the requirement -> those who haven’t followed the requirement are not eligible for the initial criterion.
It’s not a bad logic per say, but it overlooks certain possibilities. The most obvious one is that now these factories can be emitting too much, but because they weren’t last year, they haven’t installed systems. Or else, they may have overlooked the requirement to install.
When you scan through the options, it’s pretty obvious that both B and D are slightly off target, because B is too general and only speaks about one instance, and D goes into a completely different direction of thinking.
However, A, C and E all don’t look bad.
A.
This is logical but attacks the criterion -> requirement connection, rather than the final step of the reasoning.
Criterion is cold blood, ‘requirement’ is classification. So, no cold blood, no reptile tag – seems logical and not the same as in the argument. Eliminate.
C.
This logic illustrates the criterion-requirement structure to the fullest and doesn’t really have any serious error.
Indeed, if one must live in a district to represent it, those who don’t like in a territory cannot be its legal representatives. Eliminate.
E.
This one hits the nail on the head and overlooks the same potential scenarios as our argument: indeed, those who were athletes were required to take the test. But maybe there are new athletes, or maybe this ‘must take a test’ rule was overlooked. This is illustrative of the original argument, so this is a suitable option.
The correct answer is E.
Posted from my mobile device
There’s a criterion -> those who fit it, have to follow the requirement -> those who haven’t followed the requirement are not eligible for the initial criterion.
It’s not a bad logic per say, but it overlooks certain possibilities. The most obvious one is that now these factories can be emitting too much, but because they weren’t last year, they haven’t installed systems. Or else, they may have overlooked the requirement to install.
When you scan through the options, it’s pretty obvious that both B and D are slightly off target, because B is too general and only speaks about one instance, and D goes into a completely different direction of thinking.
However, A, C and E all don’t look bad.
A.
This is logical but attacks the criterion -> requirement connection, rather than the final step of the reasoning.
Criterion is cold blood, ‘requirement’ is classification. So, no cold blood, no reptile tag – seems logical and not the same as in the argument. Eliminate.
C.
This logic illustrates the criterion-requirement structure to the fullest and doesn’t really have any serious error.
Indeed, if one must live in a district to represent it, those who don’t like in a territory cannot be its legal representatives. Eliminate.
E.
This one hits the nail on the head and overlooks the same potential scenarios as our argument: indeed, those who were athletes were required to take the test. But maybe there are new athletes, or maybe this ‘must take a test’ rule was overlooked. This is illustrative of the original argument, so this is a suitable option.
The correct answer is E.
Posted from my mobile device
