Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 12:19 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 12:19 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. 
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
iabhish1509
Joined: 09 Jan 2024
Last visit: 01 Feb 2026
Posts: 125
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Schools: NUS BU (A$) Simon '27 (A$$) Tepper (A$)
GPA: 8
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
11 Jul 2024, 06:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO E!
i have a weird way of looking at the passage
Conclusion: any factory that has not installed Filteration system since last year must be emitting pollutants below the required level.
Premise: factories emitting pollutants above a certain level must install advanced filtration systems
Assumption: There can not be any other reason as to why a factory which is exceeding pollutant limits has not installed a Filteration System yet
Flaw: Lets take the Situation of exceeding the Pollutants limit as Situation A and installing the Filteration System as Situation/Action B.
The passasge somewhat wants us to believe these 2 points:
1. Situation A will always Trigger Situation/Action B - No Problem IMO
2. Absence of Situation/Action B means Absence of Situation A - this is the flaw IMO
i am looking for a similar flaw. E fills that description more accurately for me:
professional athletes{Situation A} must undergo regular drug Testing{Situation/Action B}.
if someone has not undergone drug testing{Absence of Situation/Action B}, they must not be a professional athlete.{Absence of Situation A}
i have a weird way of looking at the passage
Conclusion: any factory that has not installed Filteration system since last year must be emitting pollutants below the required level.
Premise: factories emitting pollutants above a certain level must install advanced filtration systems
Assumption: There can not be any other reason as to why a factory which is exceeding pollutant limits has not installed a Filteration System yet
Flaw: Lets take the Situation of exceeding the Pollutants limit as Situation A and installing the Filteration System as Situation/Action B.
The passasge somewhat wants us to believe these 2 points:
1. Situation A will always Trigger Situation/Action B - No Problem IMO
2. Absence of Situation/Action B means Absence of Situation A - this is the flaw IMO
professional athletes{Situation A} must undergo regular drug Testing{Situation/Action B}.
if someone has not undergone drug testing{Absence of Situation/Action B}, they must not be a professional athlete.{Absence of Situation A}
