GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 13 Dec 2019, 06:24

### 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

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

# Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 81
Schools: ISB '17 (A), IIMC (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V32
Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2014, 01:25
5
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

78% (01:30) correct 22% (01:39) wrong based on 246 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice that which can instead be attributed to stupidity. But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week, so it is clear that by overwatering the plant he intended to destroy it.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice.
The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus.
The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus.
The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.
The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.

_________________
Sometimes standing still can be, the best move you ever make......
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2014
Posts: 75
Schools: LBS '17 (WL)
Re: Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2014, 14:46
Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice that which can instead be attributed to stupidity. But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week, so it is clear that by overwatering the plant he intended to destroy it.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice.
The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus.
The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus.
The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.
The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.

Thanks Aadika. Here's my thought process on how I approached it.

Reading the question "Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice that which can instead be attributed to stupidity. But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week, so it is clear that by overwatering the plant he intended to destroy it." - so hence to weaken the argument there must be some stupidity involved in watering the plant or some incompetence of sorts.

Going through the arguments....

Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice - Doesn't weaken argument, somewhat irrelevant, bin
The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus. - Irrelevant, bin it
The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus. - Irrelevant, talking about intentions rather than stupidity, not direct link
The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.- Irrelevant
The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.- Yep. This one implies stupidity and ignorance. If roommate was aware of amount of water the cactus would be given, this would strengthen the conclusion. So this one is right.

Hope it helps.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2018
Posts: 12
Re: Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2018, 09:05
Can someone please explain the OA
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2018
Posts: 159
Location: Viet Nam
Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2019, 08:58
VERITAS OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Solution: E

In any Weaken question, your first three steps are: 1) locating the conclusion; 2) negating it; 3) searching the answers for something that supports that negation. The negation of our conclusion is “The roommate may NOT have intended to destroy the cactus”, so we need some answer choice providing evidence for that. Only C and E even touch on the roommate not wanting to destroy the cactus, but C merely says that the roommate acted sad – which, of course, could just be an act, or a feeling of guilt. E says that the roommate didn’t know how much water the cactus required, raising the strong possibility that the death of the cactus was an accident.
_________________
"It Always Seems Impossible Until It Is Done"
Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2018
Posts: 18
Re: Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2019, 22:54
"But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week"

how I am approaching is above sentence as fact,as given them how can answer be negating it that friend is unaware of amount of water
Re: Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice   [#permalink] 27 Apr 2019, 22:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by