|
|
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.
Rahul_Sharma23
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V83 DI83 
Posts: 117
10 Jul 2025, 22:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise: every successful bid came from the city which hosted at least one major sporting event, city Y has never hosted a major international sporting event that's why they think they have little chance of getting selected.
we need to find logical flaw in the reasoning
The major flaw is that they are predicting the outcome not on the basis of checklist of rules followed by selection committee, but on the basis of similarity between the past outcomes, any option that highlights this is the correct answer.
A) no priorities of bid committees mentioned in the question
B) well each successful bid came from the city that had prior hosting experience, which serves as a direct evidence
C) not true
D) correct, similarity among previous outcomes doesn't mean that similarity is essential to achieve similar outcome
E) question doesn't concern whether cities that don't have hosting experience are interested or disinterested in applying for the bid
we need to find logical flaw in the reasoning
The major flaw is that they are predicting the outcome not on the basis of checklist of rules followed by selection committee, but on the basis of similarity between the past outcomes, any option that highlights this is the correct answer.
A) no priorities of bid committees mentioned in the question
B) well each successful bid came from the city that had prior hosting experience, which serves as a direct evidence
C) not true
D) correct, similarity among previous outcomes doesn't mean that similarity is essential to achieve similar outcome
E) question doesn't concern whether cities that don't have hosting experience are interested or disinterested in applying for the bid
Bunuel
10 Jul 2025, 23:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
City Y has never hosted a major international sporting event. An analysis of the past five Olympic Games reveals that, without exception, each successful bid came from a city that had hosted at least one major sporting event within five years of its Olympic bid. Based on this observation, City Y’s bid committee believes it has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games.
Which of the following best points out a flaw in the reasoning above?
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
Olympic Committee's selection criteria is not mentioned in the argument. There is only observation based on past selection. There is no priority of City Y bid committee mentioned other than hosting Olympic Games.
Incorrect
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
The conclusion is based on a observation and not an direct evidence.
Incorrect
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
There is always a possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before but the Olympic Games committee selection criteria is unknown. It is not clear whether the reasoning is flawed.
Incorrect
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
The conclusion is based on a observation on previous outcomes which may or may not be essential for those outcomes.
Correct
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
City Y is definitely interested in hosting Olympic games.
Incorrect
IMO D
Which of the following best points out a flaw in the reasoning above?
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
Olympic Committee's selection criteria is not mentioned in the argument. There is only observation based on past selection. There is no priority of City Y bid committee mentioned other than hosting Olympic Games.
Incorrect
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
The conclusion is based on a observation and not an direct evidence.
Incorrect
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
There is always a possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before but the Olympic Games committee selection criteria is unknown. It is not clear whether the reasoning is flawed.
Incorrect
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
The conclusion is based on a observation on previous outcomes which may or may not be essential for those outcomes.
Correct
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
City Y is definitely interested in hosting Olympic games.
Incorrect
IMO D
10 Jul 2025, 23:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. The argument does not discuss Olympic Committee’s selection criteria or the priorities of parties. It is only about the prediction based on past outcomes. Eliminate
B. It is exactly the prediction stated in the argument. Does not point out or explain the flaw. Eliminate
C. Though it states that the conclusion might be wrong, it doesn't explain the flaw in the reasoning. Eliminate
D. Based on the previous outcomes, it wrongly assumes that previous hosting experience is an important & major factor in selection criteria. Correct
E. This is incorrect to the argument. City Y is interested to host and made a bid. Eliminate
Answer: D
B. It is exactly the prediction stated in the argument. Does not point out or explain the flaw. Eliminate
C. Though it states that the conclusion might be wrong, it doesn't explain the flaw in the reasoning. Eliminate
D. Based on the previous outcomes, it wrongly assumes that previous hosting experience is an important & major factor in selection criteria. Correct
E. This is incorrect to the argument. City Y is interested to host and made a bid. Eliminate
Answer: D
