Last visit was: 09 Aug 2026, 12:50 It is currently 09 Aug 2026, 12:50
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
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 112,636
Own Kudos:
833,156
 [5]
Given Kudos: 110,730
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 112,636
Kudos: 833,156
 [5]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 112,636
Own Kudos:
833,156
 [1]
Given Kudos: 110,730
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 112,636
Kudos: 833,156
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Stiwari4001
Joined: 25 Jul 2025
Last visit: 15 Jul 2026
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 17
Posts: 28
Kudos: 23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Shivam2612
Joined: 03 Dec 2024
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
7
 [1]
Given Kudos: 52
Products:
Posts: 72
Kudos: 7
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A) Valid conditional reasoning. No flaw.
B) Concludes that funded startups are likley to survive.
C) Completely eliminate
E) Applies an existing prerequisite rule consistently.
D) Marathon runners have lower heart disease rates, so the govt should require everyone to run a marathon. This assumes running a marathon is the cause of the lower heart disease rates. Hence, D
User avatar
paragw
Joined: 17 May 2024
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 315
Own Kudos:
320
 [1]
Given Kudos: 56
Products:
Posts: 315
Kudos: 320
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Flaw: Confuses correlation with causation and recommends mandatory participation based on an observed association.
A. Applies a rule; no casual flaw
B. Not a policy mandate
C. Not a form of mandate or same reasoning
D has the same flaw
E. No casual flaw
User avatar
Barsha5
Joined: 26 Jun 2022
Last visit: 04 Aug 2026
Posts: 58
Own Kudos:
53
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 58
Kudos: 53
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is a parallel flaw question type. It confuses correlation with causation. The logic gap is that students participating in chess and scoring higher are related by casualty. It could well be the case that students who participate in chess are inherently good at chess too and vice versa. These 2 events are therefore correlated. Same flaw is exhibited in only option D. People who participate in marathon could inherently be healthy and have lower heart rates, one does not cause another.

D is the answer.
User avatar
feistygirl
Joined: 26 Apr 2026
Last visit: 06 Aug 2026
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
54
 [1]
Posts: 60
Kudos: 54
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am going with the option d.
It exhibits a similar flaw as in the argument above than the other options.
like how the argument associates joining chess class leads to high scores in ESM similarly option d also links running marathon with lower heart diseases.
the argument says that ESM is important to retain public support and competitiveness similarly option d states leading death rate and reduces burden on healthcare.
while option b can be similar too it all gets down to the last line where b simply suggests that if one gets funding their chances of survival increases while option d like the argument mandates it.
there is a similar pattern that option b follows in logic and language both with respect to the argument, hence d.
User avatar
BrownBearBR
Joined: 22 May 2023
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
20
 [2]
Given Kudos: 390
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q50 V24
Products:
GMAT 1: 600 Q50 V24
Posts: 46
Kudos: 20
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I got D as the answer. Out of all the options this is the only one that runs a comparison between 2 situations and talks about adopting/asking the govt to adopt the 1st method which could help it achieve it's desired goal
avatar
DachauerDon
Joined: 19 Apr 2025
Last visit: 04 Aug 2026
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
70
 [1]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: Germany
Schools: LBS
Products:
Schools: LBS
Posts: 88
Kudos: 70
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument: Participants in chess club score higher on the exam -> higher exam scores are desirable -> everyone should participate in the chess club.
Flaw: Confusing causation and correlation. Just because people who are in the chess club score highly on the exam doesn't necessarily mean that high exam scores are caused by the (skills and attributes developed in) the chess club.

A), B) & C) INCORRECT, totally different argumentative flaw
D) People who run marathons experience less heart disease -> less heart disease is desirable -> everyone should run marathons. This follows the same argumentative flaw where correlation and causation are confused. -> CORRECT
E) INCORRECT, totally different argumentative flaw
User avatar
monso010
Joined: 28 May 2026
Last visit: 06 Aug 2026
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 8
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Have to call out that the options B and D were very similar in terms of structure and impact except the ending. I initially felt the ending edged the right option more towards D rather B.

Trap!!!
User avatar
Potatae
Joined: 18 Apr 2025
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
5
 [1]
Given Kudos: 18
Concentration: Strategy, Other
Posts: 23
Kudos: 5
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I used abstraction to eliminate options.
The argument structure abstract is as follow:

Those who did X --> got A vs those who did not do X .
A is vital for so & so.
Therefore, must mandate X for all

A) INCORRECT

Handles international wiring (sufficient condition) --> must comply regulations mandate (necessary condition)

X does not have necessary condition. Therefore x cannot sufficient condition.

[This is not like the argument structure]

B) INCORRECT

Does start with
Those who did X --> got A vs those who did not do X .
A is vital for so & so.
But CONCLUDES : doing X is will likely A instead of
Must X for all.
eliminate.

C) INCORRECT

Doing X --> did not get A
Not A is vital for so & so.
Therefore, by doing X we can eliminate A.

Not close to our argument structure.

D) CORRECT

Those who did X --> got A vs those who did not do X .
(Those who run lowered heart disease rate)
A is vital for so & so.
Therefore, must mandate X for all

E) INCORRECT

Who wants (sufficient condition) --> must (necessary condition)

Because necessary condition helps sufficient condition

Therefore, no necessary condition no sufficient condition.
User avatar
indresh2152
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
5
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 5
Kudos: 5
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D. Correlation -> Causation
User avatar
harshitaa45
Joined: 20 Feb 2021
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
30
 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Products:
Posts: 48
Kudos: 30
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D shares the same reasoning as the question because if x leading to Y , then for making Y necessary mean making X necessary as well
User avatar
abhishekb1352
Joined: 16 Jan 2026
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
25
 [1]
Given Kudos: 21
Products:
Posts: 37
Kudos: 25
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
First of all this seems like a causal patterns where B is happening because A happened first..

I went ahead with open D as it made more sense to me in terms of the analogy provided in the Premise.
User avatar
boomer1ang
Joined: 13 Oct 2022
Last visit: 14 Jul 2026
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
67
 [1]
Given Kudos: 49
Posts: 62
Kudos: 67
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument makes an assumption that enrollement in chess program leads to higher math score. It does not take into account what else outside the chess program could be resulting in increased score.
Option D is similar, where it assumes running 1 marathon is directly corelated to lower heart disease and does not take into account other factors.
User avatar
mehtyas
Joined: 27 May 2025
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 74
Own Kudos:
61
 [1]
Given Kudos: 680
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Posts: 74
Kudos: 61
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Original argument's Flawes as it assumes that chess causes the higher score. But there could be a different reason for the Chess players being better at the ESM test (academically strong or better motivated). The flaw is essentially that it confuses correlation with causation.

Looking at the options, I think option D is correct because it states that people who choose to run marathons have lower heart disease rates, and everyone should be required to run marathons. The argument takes marathon runners being healthy to the fact that they run marathons, which might not be the cause.

Other options do not have any correlation vs causation flaw in them.
User avatar
Reon
Joined: 16 Sep 2025
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 264
Own Kudos:
193
 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Products:
Posts: 264
Kudos: 193
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Participants of after school chess program = scored higher in ESM.
Improvement in ESM vital for competitiveness in jm.
Therefore, district should mandate participation in the chess program for all high school students.

Observed correlation....assumed mandating everyone into chess would cause the math score to rise.......proposes a mandate based on assumption.

A) it is a correlation to causation......Wrong
B) it does not propose a force mandate based on a faulty casual link........Wrong
C) it goes from no evidence of failure to completely eliminating the risk amd also it does notinclude any mandatory participation.......Wrong
D) marathon runners have lower heart disease rate ....... Assumes that requiring everyone to run a marathon will go lower heart disease rates........... proposes a mandatory policy based on that assumption just like in the question.................Correct

D
User avatar
minimanatus
Joined: 28 Oct 2025
Last visit: 25 Jul 2026
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 7
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
My answer is D because it seems to follow similar structure like in the question .
User avatar
omnisin
Joined: 04 Aug 2025
Last visit: 19 Jul 2026
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
10
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 14
Kudos: 10
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Students in chess program---> Higher ESM scores--> Better outcomes for institutional performance---> District should mandate club

This does not account for the fact that students in the club are self selecting and likely already better at math.

This best aligns with option d, where marathon runners are also self selecting.
User avatar
aincidunt
Joined: 18 Aug 2025
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
2
 [1]
Given Kudos: 18
Products:
Posts: 2
Kudos: 2
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We are looking for an argument that exhibits the same flaw in reasoning: Misattributing correlation as causation in outcomes from a voluntary action.
A) This does not resemble the argument.
B) Closely resembles the initial argument, but the process of recieving VC funding is not voluntary. Therefore, this self selection bias is not present, the firms are being selected by VC companies.
C) This argument is not exhaustive, but does not contain the misattribution we are looking for.
D) This argument makes the same mistake as the initial argument: Individuals who choose to participate in a marathon will be generally healthier than individuals that do not. These individuals are healther not because they run a single marathon, but because they lead a lifestyle that enables them to partake in one. Correct.
E) This does not resemble the argument.
 1   2   3   4   5   6   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
Verbal Forum Moderator
703 posts