Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
24 Sep 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
30% (02:15) correct
70%
(02:35)
wrong
based on 273
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
If violations of any of a society’s explicit rules routinely go unpunished, then that society’s people will be left without moral guidance. Because people who lack moral guidance will act in many different ways, chaos results. Thus, a society ought never to allow any of its explicit rules to be broken with impunity.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) takes for granted that a society will avoid chaos as long as none of its explicit rules are routinely violated with impunity
(B) fails to consider that the violated rules might have been made to prevent problems that would not arise even if the rules were removed
(C) infers, from the claim that the violation of some particular rules will lead to chaos, that the violation of any rule will lead to chaos
(D) confuses the routine nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule
(E) takes for granted that all of a society’s explicit rules result in equally serious consequences when broken
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) takes for granted that a society will avoid chaos as long as none of its explicit rules are routinely violated with impunity
(B) fails to consider that the violated rules might have been made to prevent problems that would not arise even if the rules were removed
(C) infers, from the claim that the violation of some particular rules will lead to chaos, that the violation of any rule will lead to chaos
(D) confuses the routine nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule
(E) takes for granted that all of a society’s explicit rules result in equally serious consequences when broken
24 Sep 2021, 12:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. Routinely not punishing for violation of rules leads to moral guidance reduction--> ultimately to NO moral guidance.
NO moral guidance ---> chaos
=> 2. Every violation of rules(never allow without punishment) ---> punish
Conclusion 2) says that it applies to every violation vs the premise 1) which covers routine violation (a subset of all violation). So the conclusion drawn is incorrect. A correct conclusion would be, to stop "routinely" non-punishing when law is violated like allow exception cases to go unpunished( assume somebody really sick to be in prison due to health reason etc).
What weakens the argument here?
(A) takes for granted that a society will avoid chaos as long as none of its explicit rules are routinely violated with impunity
Argument is not about avoid chaos, but about not punishing when routine violation of law occurs. Eliminate
.
(B) fails to consider that the violated rules might have been made to prevent problems that would not arise even if the rules were removed
This only gives a reason why violation of rule could have happened but dose expose the flaw in the argument. Eliminate.
(C) infers, from the claim that the violation of some particular rules will lead to chaos, that the violation of any rule will lead to chaos
This is against the argument as it never claimed that some particular rules lead to chaos. Eliminate.
(D) confuses the routine nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule
This is what we arrived at our analysis. Hence, D is the right choice.
(E) takes for granted that all of a society’s explicit rules result in equally serious consequences when broken
Consequence of breaking rules was not discussed in the argument. Eliminate
NO moral guidance ---> chaos
=> 2. Every violation of rules(never allow without punishment) ---> punish
Conclusion 2) says that it applies to every violation vs the premise 1) which covers routine violation (a subset of all violation). So the conclusion drawn is incorrect. A correct conclusion would be, to stop "routinely" non-punishing when law is violated like allow exception cases to go unpunished( assume somebody really sick to be in prison due to health reason etc).
What weakens the argument here?
(A) takes for granted that a society will avoid chaos as long as none of its explicit rules are routinely violated with impunity
Argument is not about avoid chaos, but about not punishing when routine violation of law occurs. Eliminate
.
(B) fails to consider that the violated rules might have been made to prevent problems that would not arise even if the rules were removed
This only gives a reason why violation of rule could have happened but dose expose the flaw in the argument. Eliminate.
(C) infers, from the claim that the violation of some particular rules will lead to chaos, that the violation of any rule will lead to chaos
This is against the argument as it never claimed that some particular rules lead to chaos. Eliminate.
(D) confuses the routine nonpunishment of violations of a rule with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule
This is what we arrived at our analysis. Hence, D is the right choice.
(E) takes for granted that all of a society’s explicit rules result in equally serious consequences when broken
Consequence of breaking rules was not discussed in the argument. Eliminate
25 Sep 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The logic here is pretty tight, except it says “routinely” in the first line, and then makes a conclusion that a society should never let its rules go unpunished.
A) This isn’t what I’m looking for, and it also seems to confuse a sufficient and necessary condition.
B) It doesn’t matter what the purpose of the rules was, the logic of the argument would remain the same.
C) The argument doesn’t do this. The argument says “any” in the first line and “any” again in the fifth line.
D) Yep, the argument seems to think that since routine nonpunishment will lead to chaos, we can’t sometimes allow nonpunishment. I think this is it.
E) The argument doesn’t care whether some rules are more important than others. The first premise says if you allow any rule to routinely go unpunished, then chaos results.
Our answer is D
