In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl

SonalSinha803 Thank you, well understood

(A) another argument that contains circular reasoning - Its the same argument which contains two independent aspects, which the author thinks will be interlinked. It "must" not be reasoning. Could be. Not compulsorily based on this reasoning.
(B) an attempt to refute a generalization by means of an exceptional case - not refuted
(C) an analogy between the past and the future --- Explicitly defined time past and future.
(D) an appeal to popular beliefs and values - no appeal
(E) an attack on the character of the opposition - character : out of scope. Taken at literal sense

In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

The argument above is based on

(A) another argument that contains circular reasoning- I'm not dead because I'm alive. I alive because I'm not dead.
(B) an attempt to refute a generalization by means of an exceptional case. Not refuting but trying to prove and set is as general trend
(C) an analogy between the past and the future. something that happened in the past will happen again.
(D) an appeal to popular beliefs and values. Nah!!! No appeal. It's about analogy.
(E) an attack on the character of the opposition. Nahh. No opposition.

C is the correct answer choice.

Hello experts,
Whats a circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning is when your conclusion and your evidence for that conclusion are essentially the same thing -- meaning that you end up exactly where you started.

Consider this example: "Riding a motorcycle is dangerous because it's unsafe to ride a motorcycle."

Here, my evidence ("it's unsafe to ride a motorcycle") is basically a restatement of my conclusion ("riding a motorcycle is dangerous").

So, I really haven't made a very strong argument. I'm trapped in a logical loop that doesn't actually provide any outside support for my conclusion beyond the conclusion itself.

The argument in this OG question isn't based on another argument that contains circular reasoning. It's based on the evidence that "in the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women." There's nothing circular about this -- it's just a statement that tells us what happened to pay and status when women started to do certain jobs. You can eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.