In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that

Hey! I understand your explanation, but even B offers that comparison.
I don't know how to eliminate B. Can you explain further?

Hey, Let me try and explain
Because of X, Y happens. But Z caused Y in a special case
Option D follows this pattern
When we look at option B, it follows a somewhat different pattern. It says
If X (action of police) does not happen, Y (riot) will happen. Since X (action of police) CANNOT happen (because of any reason), Y (Riot) is bound to happen
No third element Z is introduced here which may cause Y

Hope this helps

The error inherent in the argument presented in the question stem is the error of contradiction. While on one hand it is argued that soft shooting touch is essential to obtain a three point score skill; on the other hand, it is mentioned that Wilt Chamberlain would have had three point scoring skill, despite the soft shooting touch.


Let us look at the reasoning flaws with each of the options:-

(A) Eighty percent of the freshmen at Berkeley go on to get a bachelor’s degree. David is a freshman at Berkeley, so he will probably complete his studies and receive a bachelor’s degree.- Error of probability. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the argument per se.

(B) If the police don’t act immediately to quell the disturbance, it will escalate into a riot. However, since the police are understaffed, there will be a riot.- Bringing in new consideration to make the point. Firstly, the arguer says that escalation of riot is contingent upon police not acting immediately and then brings into discussion new consideration of strength of police.

(C) The meek shall inherit the earth. Susie received an inheritance from her grandfather, so she must be meek.- Confusing the "earth" with "inheritance". So, the error is increase in scope.

(D) During the Vietnam War, the powerful had to serve along with the poor. However, Stevens’ father was a federal judge, so Stevens was able to get a draft deferment.- The error of contradiction.On one hand you say powerful had to serve with poor; on the other hand, Stevens could get a deferment.

(E) All dolphins are mammals and all mammals breathe air. Therefore, all mammals that breathe air are dolphins.- The error in reasoning found in this argument is equating "all mammals" with "all dolphins" and thereby limiting the scope of the "dolphins"

Because of X, Y happens. But Z caused Y in a special case

I am not able to find how draft deferment (Y) is serving along with poor (Y)?
I even can't understand draft deferment is good thing or bad. Poor people have draft deferment or only rich? What is relation of poor or rich with draft deferment?

In B, I could see directly.

X= police don’t act immediately to quell the disturbance
Y= a riot
Z= the police are understaffed

I could see Y clearly on both sides.

Please help to choose D over B CrackVerbalGMAT GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, mira93, nightblade354, carouselambra Kunal112 @

Let me give you some understanding from my end. Maybe it will try to change your perspective. We can then come to your solution if you are comfortable with my approach.

Question stem says :
In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that only those with a soft shooting touch can develop.
Meaning :Basically, people with only a specific ability(say 'Y') can develop the skill 'X'

Wilt Chamberlain, however, was a great player, so even though he did not have a soft shooting touch he would have excelled at scoring three point shots.
Meaning : To the above category is an exception Wilt (let's call him WC)
So, WC was a great player (who probably has some other ability). Owing to this 'Z' ability, he did not need the skill 'X' and could do the required task anyway.

Clearly we can dealing with exception handling so we will also look out for options keeping this thought inline.
(B) If the police don’t act immediately to quell the disturbance, it will escalate into a riot. However, since the police are understaffed, there will be a riot.
Let's say police has that 'Y' ability we spoke of, remember? This can quell the disturbance.
Now, "since the police are understaffed" does not translate into an exception handling case since it is not mentioned that they do not have enough skill to do handle the situation. They are merely understaffed. Also notice how development of skill 'X' is not mentioned anywhere.
It is also not mentioned that someone who does not have that 'Ý' ability will come and prevent the situation from turning into a riot.

(D) During the Vietnam War, the powerful had to serve along with the poor. However, Stevens’ father was a federal judge, so Stevens was able to get a draft deferment.
Because they are powerful (X), they have to serve along with the poor (Y)

Now, notice carefully the exception handling. However, Stevens’ father was a federal judge
This clearly resonates with the reasoning that we did in the beginning. Federal judge (who is also powerful) might have an ability 'Z' because of which he received the deferral. At this point, go through the parallel components to see how closely they resemble.

Hope this helped and made sense, let me know.
We can then come to your reasoning.

Cheers!

carouselambra:
Amazing:) After reading I understood in first reading that I missed the exception point but carried away with 3rd factor which was not considered to be exception- core of this argument .
Thanks for enabling a new perspective with key words.

Do you mind if I tag you for other queries in future? My queries will be to the point with my analysis and only after I could not break further.
Of course, you can reply if it is convenience and if you are available.

Thanks a lot !

mSKR

Sure! Please feel free to tag me/any of the moderators.
I'll try my best to help you out. Cheers!

Example -- two different premises point to same conclusion. 1.)Soft touch --> 3 pointers. 2.) Chamberlain does not have soft touch but he's great --> 3 pointers.

Option D -- one premise points to 2 different conclusions. 1.) Powerful --> has to serve. 2.) Powerful (judge's son) --> does not have to serve.

Option B -- two different premises point to same conclusion. 1.) Police fail to act immediately --> riot. 2) Police are understaffed -- > riot

Correct answer is B.

The key is to recognize the completely unrelated premises. "Soft touch" does not mean "great player" and vice versa. "Police fail to act" and "Police are understaffed" also are not the same thing. Different premises pointing to the same conclusion both in the example and in B.