Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 18:54 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 18:54
Close
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
Your Progress

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
TheSJ
Joined: 23 May 2023
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Posts: 34
Kudos: 37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
sayan640
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,180
Own Kudos:
813
 [1]
Given Kudos: 783
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Products:
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Posts: 1,180
Kudos: 813
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
AthulSasi
Joined: 25 Jun 2019
Last visit: 04 Nov 2025
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
77
 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V85 DI81
GPA: 8.5
WE:Marketing (Energy)
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V85 DI81
Posts: 55
Kudos: 77
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Dooperman
Joined: 06 Jun 2019
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 321
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
Schools: ISB '27 Kellogg
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Schools: ISB '27 Kellogg
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 112
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
F's flaw
Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
There could be other factors for cost of living crisis (anything that can not be controlled by financial planning).

P's flaw
Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
(Doesn't talk about solution).
User avatar
Elite097
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 771
Own Kudos:
553
 [1]
Given Kudos: 346
Location: India
GPA: 3.64
Posts: 771
Kudos: 553
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For Fareena:

Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon: This directly addresses the narrowness of her proposed solution, acknowledging that there may be other contributing factors to the financial issues of the elderly.
For Paul:

Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion: This highlights that Paul's argument about individual responsibility doesn't directly refute Fareena's point about solving the financial crisis among the elderly.

Ans C,B
User avatar
Fido10
Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Last visit: 27 Aug 2024
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 298
Location: Morocco
Products:
Posts: 103
Kudos: 165
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For Fareena the conclusion is : mandating that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.
Fareena tackles the financial planing matter by suggesting the mandate of 20% saving. But, it could be other thins that could lead to necessity other than financial planing. If for example, we consider mismanagement or any other factor that can lead to being unable to afford even basic necessities then the conclusion is flawed
The correct answer is then, Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.


For Paul, the conslusion is : I think your conclusion is wrong. People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit
Paul is not adressing the right conclusion that Fareena is dealing with, which is the fact or not that saving 20% will help being at a shelter from bein in need pf basics when elder.
Paul is talking about the right and freedom of spending, so the flaw here is that he is not addressing the right matter Fareena is tackling.
The correct answer then is : Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
User avatar
AviNFC
Joined: 31 May 2023
Last visit: 13 Nov 2025
Posts: 216
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 216
Kudos: 288
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C. Fareena considered that bcoz of no saving, aged people are suffering. But, how if there are some other reasons for suffering? may be they have high medical expenditures, no pension etc. ? 

E. Paul misinterprets the concept of 20% saving. She attacks the idea that adult should manage their finance. However, concept of saving was for those who cannot manage finance.

Ans C & E­
User avatar
Purnank
Joined: 05 Jan 2024
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 680
Own Kudos:
585
 [1]
Given Kudos: 166
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q88 V76 DI80
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q88 V76 DI80
Posts: 680
Kudos: 585
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Fareena: Claims that because people are generally ignorant about financial planning, the government should mandate that everyone invest 20% of their income into a state retirement fund to solve the elderly financial crisis.

Paul: I think your conclusion is wrong. People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit. In the case of adults, at least, it is the individual’s responsibility to manage their finances, not the government’s.

lets analyze the options to select the most serious flaw in Fareena’s reasoning and the most serious flaw in Paul’s reasoning.

A. Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem. - I dont think anyone is baseless.

B. Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion. - This suits with Paul's argument that individuals should manage their finances themselves does not directly address the issue Fareena raised about elderly destitution due to poor financial planning. His reasoning about personal responsibility doesn't address whether Fareena's proposal would be effective in preventing the specific problem of destitution among the elderly.

C. Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon. - This suits with Fareena's assumption that ignorance about financial planning is the sole reason for the elderly's destitution and that mandating investment will solve the problem. This overlooks other possible factors contributing to the issue (e.g., unexpected medical expenses, economic downturns, or insufficient income).


D. Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon. - Irrelevant to Both.

E. Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term. - Also, Irrelevant.

Answers Fareena - C and Paul - B.
User avatar
GuadalupeAntonia
User avatar
Yale Moderator
Joined: 04 May 2024
Last visit: 23 Aug 2025
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Mexico
GMAT Focus 1: 665 Q84 V83 DI80
GPA: 3.5
GMAT Focus 1: 665 Q84 V83 DI80
Posts: 59
Kudos: 66
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Fareena’s reasoning flaw
Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.

The flaw relies in that Farina claims that the solution for avoiding an economic crisis in elderly people in the future only can be prevented by a government mandate while overlooks other solutions such as creating funds coming from the labor taxes those future old people are paying now, or creating jobs for elderly people etc.

Paul’s reasoning flaw
Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.

He falls for recognize that government will suffer the consequence of an economic or elder health crisis derived from old people incapacity to afford themselves. It is true that government may not force people to save money but it is responsible to take actions to avoid future economic crisis due to inadequate finance managing of individuals.



Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
INCORRECT, both reasonings are relevant to establish a conclusion

Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.
INCORRECT we are looking factors for a phenomenom

Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
INCORRECT there is no an ambiguous term.
User avatar
PK1
Joined: 11 Aug 2018
Last visit: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 96
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 47
Products:
Posts: 96
Kudos: 143
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Bunuel
Fareena: Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning. As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities. The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund. This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.

Paul: I think your conclusion is wrong. People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit. In the case of adults, at least, it is the individual’s responsibility to manage their finances, not the government’s.

In the table, select the most serious flaw in Fareena’s reasoning and the most serious flaw in Paul’s reasoning. Make only two selections, one in each column.

­
 


This question was provided by Experts' Global
for the GMAT Olympics 2024

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Admissions Consulting, and more

 

­
­Fareena: Conclusion : Govt should mandate that all working professionals invest 20% monthly income in state retirement fund as it would take care of lack of finacial planning and thus solve cost of living crisis among elderly

Paul - Conclusion: Govt should not mandate that individuals invest 20% because People should be able to spend or save as they fit. As adults it is individual's responsibility to manage their finances, not governmants

a)Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
-- It is flaw for Fareena's argument as she thinks govt mandate is the only solution for the problem. 

b)Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion
-- Both people had reasoning relevant so this is out

c)Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon
-- It is a flaw for Paul's argument as her conclusion rejects mandate while it could be one factor and others also need to be understood.

d)Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.
-- no multiple phenomenon is talked so out

e)Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
-- out as there is no ambiguous term
 
User avatar
sohailasif786
Joined: 13 May 2024
Last visit: 07 Oct 2025
Posts: 43
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 43
Kudos: 50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Fareena:
Premise
Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning. As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities.

The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund. Conclusion
This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.(Premise)

Conclusion
The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund.

Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem. --The argument doesnt presume that there can be only one solution, it has given one solution but doesnt deny that there can be any other solution
Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.--As far as it goes reasoning is relevant
Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.--So the argument has given one solution to the problem and assumes that it would solve the problem ---this assumption may be wrong if there are multiple factors involved--Correct
Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.---inverse the logic-not relevant
Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.--not relevant.

Paul:
Conclusion
I think your conclusion is wrong.
Premise
People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit. In the case of adults, at least, it is the individual’s responsibility to manage their finances, not the government’s.

Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.--he is not talking about any solution.
Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.----As far as it goes reasoning is relevant
Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.Not relevant for Paul
Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.--Correct It can be be possible that without any govt. intervention people mismanage their finances which can have a snowball effect and may effect economy.-Correct
Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.­--not relevant
ANS=CD
User avatar
xhym
Joined: 11 Jun 2024
Last visit: 20 Oct 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 7
Location: Canada
Products:
Posts: 65
Kudos: 83
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Fareena: Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning. As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities. The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund. This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.

Paul: I think your conclusion is wrong. People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit. In the case of adults, at least, it is the individual’s responsibility to manage their finances, not the government’s.

In the table, select the most serious flaw in Fareena’s reasoning and the most serious flaw in Paul’s reasoning. Make only two selections, one in each column.

­
 


This question was provided by Experts' Global
for the GMAT Olympics 2024

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Admissions Consulting, and more

 

­
­Let's first find the flaws in the arguments.

For Fareena, the flaw is that she assumes that mandaroty investment in a fund is the best (and only) solution to the problem. In other words, she assumes that this is the only solution. We must look for an answer that aligns with this.

For Paul, the flaw is that he does not specifically address the issue of elderly people not being able to effectively manage their finances. Also. what he says does not directly counter Fareena's claim at all (nor does it directly address the issue of elderly poverty - he just makes a statement about an individual's responsibility for managing their finances. We must look for an example that aligns with his irrelevant argument.

Looking at the answer choices, 

Fareena's reasoning flaw that aligns with what I said above is: baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.

Paul's reasoning flaw that aligns with what I said above is: reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion. ­­
User avatar
jairovx
Joined: 30 Mar 2023
Last visit: 06 Oct 2024
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 23
Location: Peru
Posts: 48
Kudos: 57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Fareena's reasoning has a severe flaw in assuming that mandating a 20% investment into a state retirement fund would universally solve the lack of financial planning issue and the cost of living crisis among the elderly. The flaw here is:

C. Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.

This means Fareena overlooks other potential factors contributing to financial insecurity in old age, such as healthcare costs, economic fluctuations, and personal financial decisions.

Paul's reasoning, on the other hand, has a severe flaw in his conclusion that individuals should solely manage their finances without government intervention. The flaw is:

A. Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.

Paul assumes that personal responsibility alone will address all financial planning issues for everyone, disregarding potential benefits or the necessity of government intervention in ensuring financial security for the elderly or vulnerable populations.­
User avatar
boomer1ang
Joined: 13 Oct 2022
Last visit: 12 Oct 2025
Posts: 50
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 49
Posts: 50
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem. - possible solution to Fareena

Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion. - flaw for Paul. issue is to solve cost of living crisis not managing finances.

Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon. - weakener for fareena. Arg talks only about financial planning. May be people are doing planning but there are other reasons.

Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon. - not relevant to either, what multiple phenomenon ?

Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term. - no ambiguous term.

Answer:
Fareena’s reasoning: Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
Paul’s reasoning: Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
User avatar
FranCifu
Joined: 11 Jun 2024
Last visit: 24 Nov 2024
Posts: 44
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 44
Kudos: 30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Fareena proposes that the government should force individuals to invest 20% of their monthly income to help them save for old age.

Paul on the other hand thinks that people should spend or save as they see fit.

A --> flaw in Fareena, because she thinks there are not other solutions
B --> flaw in Paul, because his conclusion has no connection
C --> irrelevant
D --> irrelevant
E --> irrelevant
 
User avatar
Urja08
Joined: 03 May 2024
Last visit: 13 Aug 2024
Posts: 42
Own Kudos:
51
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 42
Kudos: 51
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Ans C and B 

C- Flaw : she considers that only lack of fininancial planning can be the reason why elderly cannot afford basic neccesities 

B - Flaw : reasoning doesn't support the disccused conclusion .
 
User avatar
rsrobin864
Joined: 21 Aug 2020
Last visit: 10 Jan 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 60
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 65
Kudos: 77
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Fareena's Reasoning (Flaw)

Flaw: Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.

Fareena argues that lack of financial planning is the sole reason for financial struggles in old age. While financial planning is important, other factors like job security, unexpected medical expenses, or economic downturns can also contribute.

Paul's Reasoning 

Flaw: Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.

Paul argues for individual responsibility, rejecting Fareena's proposal altogether. He doesn't consider that a government-managed retirement plan could be one solution alongside individual responsibility (e.g., tax breaks for private retirement plans).

Other Answer Choices Analysis:

Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term: Not applicable here. Both arguments use clear terms.
Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion: Not applicable either. Both arguments address the issue of financial security in old age.
Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon: Not the most serious flaw in either argument.

Ans- 
  • Fareena's reasoning: Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
  • Paul's reasoning: Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
­
User avatar
bomberjack
Joined: 22 Nov 2023
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 67
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 122
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q84 V81 DI79
GMAT Focus 2: 675 Q88 V82 DI80
GMAT Focus 3: 715 Q88 V86 DI83
GMAT Focus 3: 715 Q88 V86 DI83
Posts: 67
Kudos: 73
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Quote:
Fareena: Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning. As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities. The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund. This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.

Paul: I think your conclusion is wrong. People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit. In the case of adults, at least, it is the individual’s responsibility to manage their finances, not the government’s.

In the table, select the most serious flaw in Fareena’s reasoning and the most serious flaw in Paul’s reasoning. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Flaw for Fareena: Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
There can be other solutions to this, hence this attacks the argument most.

Flaw for Paul: Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
He talks about how adults should have the freedom to spend money the way they want, this isn't really talking about conclusion which is abiut how to solve for cost of living crisis among the elderly.
User avatar
andreagonzalez2k
Joined: 15 Feb 2021
Last visit: 26 Jul 2025
Posts: 308
Own Kudos:
497
 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 308
Kudos: 497
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Fareena's conclusion: To solve the cost of living crisis among the elderly, the government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund.

Paul, indeed, doesn't talk about how to solve the cost of living crisis among the elderly.


Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
Fareena's conclusion isn't baselessly. It is a plausible solution.

Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
Paul’s reasoning flaw
His reasoning doesn't explain why Fareena's conclusion is wrong as he says.


Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
Fareena’s reasoning flaw
There can be other causes of the cost of living crisis among the elderly beyond having little knowledge of financial planning.


Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.
There is no multiple phenomenon in the reasoning.

Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
There are no ambiguous terms here.
User avatar
Anugmat740
Joined: 31 Aug 2021
Last visit: 19 Oct 2024
Posts: 97
Own Kudos:
109
 [1]
Given Kudos: 156
Posts: 97
Kudos: 109
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Fareena reasoning is flawed because it "Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon."

Paul's reasoning is about managing finances and not related to Cost-of-living crisis. His reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.

IMO 1-3 2-2
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
Math Expert
105355 posts
496 posts