It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 02:40

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# If Blankenship Enterprises has to switch suppliers in the

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 99

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

If Blankenship Enterprises has to switch suppliers in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 13:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

If Blankenship Enterprises has to switch suppliers in the middle of a large production run, the company will not show a profit for the year. Therefore, if Blankenship Enterprises in fact turns out to show no profit for the year, it will also turn out to be true that the company had to switch suppliers during a large production run.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) The argument is a circular argument made up of an opening claim followed by a conclusion that merely paraphrases that claim.
(B) The argument fails to establish that a condition under which a phenomenon is said to occur is the only condition under which that phenomenon occurs.
(C) The argument involves an equivocation, in that the word “profit” is allowed to shift its meaning during the course of the argument.
(D) The argument erroneously uses an exceptional, isolated case to support a universal conclusion.
(E) The argument explains one event as being caused by another event, even though both events must actually have been caused by some third, unidentified event.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1708

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 14:02
B. the argument fails to show that reason of no profit is only the swith of suppliers.

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 16:34
B. The argument fails to prove that replacing suppliers is the only reason of no profit.

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 399

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Location: Las Vegas

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 22:39
I think it is B

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 05:25
B, clearly.

Krishna

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1112

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 07:05
B too - a classic in CR

A->B does not mean that in any cases B comes from A, B may also come from C

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 479

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 07:42
IMO B
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1701

Kudos [?]: 470 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 08:10
It is a clear B for me.
What is the OA?
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 470 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 330

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 08:23
A clear B.

GA

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 08:28
Clearly B. pure logic question for CR.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 99

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 13:01
B is OA. I leaned toward B as well, but couldn't effectively rule out A. Why isn't this circular?

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 16:46
eastcoaster9 wrote:
B is OA. I leaned toward B as well, but couldn't effectively rule out A. Why isn't this circular?

IMO, a circular argument is something like "A is B because A is B".

However, what the author says in the article is ;

- Switching suppliers(A) => No profit(B)
- No profit(B) => suppliers(A)

Here, the author considers "A=B" as "B=A".

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1701

Kudos [?]: 470 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2005, 03:20
gamjatang wrote:
eastcoaster9 wrote:
B is OA. I leaned toward B as well, but couldn't effectively rule out A. Why isn't this circular?

IMO, a circular argument is something like "A is B because A is B".

However, what the author says in the article is ;

- Switching suppliers(A) => No profit(B)
- No profit(B) => suppliers(A)

Here, the author considers "A=B" as "B=A".

Good explanation.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 470 [0], given: 0

27 Sep 2005, 03:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by