Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 13:06 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 13:06
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
Sub 505 Level|   Logical Flaw|                                 
User avatar
paidlukkha
User avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Last visit: 21 Apr 2017
Posts: 250
Own Kudos:
365
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: ISB '18 Great Lakes '18 SPJ PGPM"17 LBS '18 NTU '18 NUS '18
WE:Project Management (Telecommunications)
Schools: ISB '18 Great Lakes '18 SPJ PGPM"17 LBS '18 NTU '18 NUS '18
Posts: 250
Kudos: 365
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 08 May 2016, 02:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Confused between C and D
C states cause
D states effect
Why is D wrong?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,537
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,537
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 09 May 2016, 11:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
paidlukkha
Confused between C and D
C states cause
D states effect
Why is D wrong?
Show more
Dear paidlukkha,

I'm happy to respond. :-) My friend, I am not sure if you realize that this very question is already discussed on this thread. For example, user monsoon1 asked this in his post of November 3, 2012, and in the very next post, on November 5, 2012, I responded. I suggest reading this part of the thread, and if you have question about what I've said, or if anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to ask.

Mike :-)
User avatar
RichaChampion
User avatar
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Last visit: 02 Jan 2018
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
88
 [2]
Given Kudos: 82
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
Posts: 70
Kudos: 88
 [2]
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 06 Aug 2016, 15:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
andy2whang
Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?


And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.
Please someone help me understand.

thanks
Andy
Dear Andy,
I'm happy to help. :-) Yes, this is a tricky official question.

Here's the text of the question again.
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

First, let's think about the nature of the objection that (D) holds. Here are a series of extremely bad arguments.
Faulty argument #1: The Dred Scott decision (1857) was a direct response to the election of Abraham Lincoln (1860).
Faulty argument #2: The election of Ronald Reagan (1980) was a direct result of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
Faulty argument #3: By answering your question, I caused you to ask the question.
All three of these are disastrous bad arguments, and all three make the same mistake. All three of these would be vulnerable to the objection that (D) makes. In order for X to cause Y, X must come earlier in time than Y. A cause may come immediately before an effect, or there may be a gap of minutes, hours, days, or even millions of years.
Striking a match immediately causes the match to burst into flame.
Not remembering to put gas in one's car will cause the car, a few hours or few days later, to run out of gas.
A habit of cigarette smoking, started in one's teen years, cause either cancer or heart disease over the course of decades.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution (1789) causes American citizens today to have the gun rights they have.
The separation of N & S America from Europe & Africa, 175 million years ago, cause Columbus & the 16th century explorers to find very different animals & plants in the New World and the Old World.
The cause could happen any time before the effect, but it absolutely can't happen after the effect.

That's what (D) says.
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
In other words, the argument is interpreting a certain condition to be the effect of a particular cause, but this reputed cause took place after the condition, the supposed effect, was already happening. It's a very powerful objection to a cause-effect argument if we can demonstrate that the reputed cause took place after the effect.

Why is (D) not the OA? Well, we get no information about when any of these things happened. Time isn't discussed at all. We know Parland's industries have higher labor productivity ---that's the effect the argument is trying to explain. We have no evidence about when in time Parland started using advanced technology, or whether they use it at all. (D) would be a very power objection if a time sequence were explicitly present in the argument, but it is not.

OK, let's go back to the argument.
Parland has a higher level of labor productivity than does Vergia. This difference is what we want to explain. Why does Parland have higher labor productivity?

The argument tells us that one way to increase labor productivity is to use advanced technology. Is this the absolutely only way on earth to increase labor productivity? Absolutely not! In some cases better educated or better trained workers might be more productive, or better equipment or better supplies or better materials might help. There are many things that can contribute to labor productivity, and advanced technology is one of them.

We want to explain why Parland has higher labor productivity. It could be because Parland has more advanced technology. That could be the cause, but it doesn't have to be. The argument fallaciously assumes that advanced technology must be the cause, the only cause, of Parland's higher labor productivity.

This is another very powerful objection. If I say, "Here's a case of B. Since A causes B, A must have caused this instance of B," then a very powerful objection would be simply to point out that B has other causes besides A. Yes, we all see an instance of B, but was it caused by A or C or D? We don't know, and we can't automatically assume the one cause was responsible and not the others.

This is exactly what (C) says:
It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Part of what is hard about this is the abstract wording. Part of what is challenging, though, is that you have to have a good intuitive sense about how the business world works. Presumably you are taking the GMAT so that you can get into business school. Well, if a candidate applies to business school and then, on the interview, doesn't give any evidence of understanding how the business world works, that's not going to look good. It's very important to build your understanding of how the business world works---what factors might influence labor productivity, for example. See this blog article:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

Wow, Mr. Garry, I wish I can give you 10 Kudos for the explanation. I have saved this link.
Here is my Interpretation based on the explanation given by You for refusing Option D.

X causes Y

X = Technological Improvement
Y = Labor Productivity Increases
X→ Y

PRETHINKING: Argument assumes that Only X can Cause Y.
If somehow we can challenge this assumption then we can weaken the conclusion. This can be done If -

We can prove that there is some other reason say A that causes Y
A CAUSES Y = A → Y



But here option D says Y(Effect, which is given the name of Condition here) existed before the Causes (X). At a very fundamental level, it is actually spoiling the Cause and Effect Definition by stating that Effect occurred before the Cause. Technically it breaks the Flow or causality that Technological Improvement Caused Improved Productivity, but at the same time it destroys the basic definition of Cause and Effect, and thus this is a bad argument.

Analogy: In Sentence Correction Questions sometimes many options are correct grammatically, but they destroy the logic and meaning.
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,537
 [2]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,537
 [2]
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 10 Oct 2016, 16:20
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
betterscore
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

This is CR #8 in the OG13.
Show more
[
Dear Nevernevergiveup,

My friend, part of what is going on is that you have to learn the vocabulary of logic. For example, the word "presuppose" has a very precise and sophisticated meaning. You will not understand that word by substituting one or two other words. You have to have the full and precise meaning of that word. You have to learn it and own it, so that when you see in a sentence such as this, it already makes sense.

What I have said of this one word is true of many of the logical terms in the answer choices. There is absolutely no substitute for knowing exactly what each word means. This problem provides a great start: you should make it your goal to learn the precise definition of each word that appears in these answer choices.

Knowing the vocab is step one. Once you know exactly what each word means, we can begin to put together the whole sentence.

For example, in (E), probably the hardest word is "presuppose." Here's the simple definition from Merriam-Webster:
to be based on the idea that something is true or will happen

Part of what might be confusing is the grammar also. The structure "the conclusion to be established" exhibits a particular idiomatic structure. The idiom "the [noun] to be [verb + ed]" is a structure that implies intention or necessary action. Describing a job as "the task to be done," implies that someone, probably someone in authority, wants this task done. In a math problem, we might talk about "the value to be found," that is, the value for which the question is asking. In this CR problem, there's a conclusion that someone is trying to establish, so this is "the conclusion to be established."

Choice (E) objects that the argument "makes a distinction," specifies a difference between two things at the beginning of the argument, and this distinction or difference "presupposes" or is logically dependent on "the truth of the conclusion that is to be established."

You see, the way an argument words, the premises are supposed to prove or provide support to the conclusion. If the premises presuppose the conclusion, that is a HUGE problem for the argument! If the premises need support from the conclusion, and the conclusion needs support from the premise, it sounds as if there's nothing reliable at all!

My friend, you need to read. You need to take up a practice of reading, reading hard logical analyses in English. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score
You need to keep up a habit of reading until choices such as this seem easy.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
ravikumarmishra
User avatar
Joined: 10 Aug 2009
Last visit: 11 Apr 2019
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 89
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V31
Posts: 51
Kudos: 18
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 02 Feb 2019, 15:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
andy2whang
Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?


And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.
Please someone help me understand.

thanks
Andy
Dear Andy,
I'm happy to help. :-) Yes, this is a tricky official question.

Here's the text of the question again.
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

First, let's think about the nature of the objection that (D) holds. Here are a series of extremely bad arguments.
Faulty argument #1: The Dred Scott decision (1857) was a direct response to the election of Abraham Lincoln (1860).
Faulty argument #2: The election of Ronald Reagan (1980) was a direct result of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
Faulty argument #3: By answering your question, I caused you to ask the question.
All three of these are disastrous bad arguments, and all three make the same mistake. All three of these would be vulnerable to the objection that (D) makes. In order for X to cause Y, X must come earlier in time than Y. A cause may come immediately before an effect, or there may be a gap of minutes, hours, days, or even millions of years.
Striking a match immediately causes the match to burst into flame.
Not remembering to put gas in one's car will cause the car, a few hours or few days later, to run out of gas.
A habit of cigarette smoking, started in one's teen years, cause either cancer or heart disease over the course of decades.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution (1789) causes American citizens today to have the gun rights they have.
The separation of N & S America from Europe & Africa, 175 million years ago, cause Columbus & the 16th century explorers to find very different animals & plants in the New World and the Old World.
The cause could happen any time before the effect, but it absolutely can't happen after the effect.

That's what (D) says.
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
In other words, the argument is interpreting a certain condition to be the effect of a particular cause, but this reputed cause took place after the condition, the supposed effect, was already happening. It's a very powerful objection to a cause-effect argument if we can demonstrate that the reputed cause took place after the effect.

Why is (D) not the OA? Well, we get no information about when any of these things happened. Time isn't discussed at all. We know Parland's industries have higher labor productivity ---that's the effect the argument is trying to explain. We have no evidence about when in time Parland started using advanced technology, or whether they use it at all. (D) would be a very power objection if a time sequence were explicitly present in the argument, but it is not.

OK, let's go back to the argument.
Parland has a higher level of labor productivity than does Vergia. This difference is what we want to explain. Why does Parland have higher labor productivity?

The argument tells us that one way to increase labor productivity is to use advanced technology. Is this the absolutely only way on earth to increase labor productivity? Absolutely not! In some cases better educated or better trained workers might be more productive, or better equipment or better supplies or better materials might help. There are many things that can contribute to labor productivity, and advanced technology is one of them.

We want to explain why Parland has higher labor productivity. It could be because Parland has more advanced technology. That could be the cause, but it doesn't have to be. The argument fallaciously assumes that advanced technology must be the cause, the only cause, of Parland's higher labor productivity.

This is another very powerful objection. If I say, "Here's a case of B. Since A causes B, A must have caused this instance of B," then a very powerful objection would be simply to point out that B has other causes besides A. Yes, we all see an instance of B, but was it caused by A or C or D? We don't know, and we can't automatically assume the one cause was responsible and not the others.

This is exactly what (C) says:
It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Part of what is hard about this is the abstract wording. Part of what is challenging, though, is that you have to have a good intuitive sense about how the business world works. Presumably you are taking the GMAT so that you can get into business school. Well, if a candidate applies to business school and then, on the interview, doesn't give any evidence of understanding how the business world works, that's not going to look good. It's very important to build your understanding of how the business world works---what factors might influence labor productivity, for example. See this blog article:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

It makes perfect sense Mike. I too, chose D and after reading your AWESOME explanation understood why D is wrong. K+1. I wonder how come it is a low difficulty question despite the abstract language of the answer choices.
User avatar
LoneSurvivor
User avatar
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Jul 2021
Posts: 302
Own Kudos:
756
Given Kudos: 156
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Posts: 302
Kudos: 756
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 27 Jul 2020, 08:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
X is necessary condition for Y and X is a possible condition for Y are two different
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
 [1]
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
 [1]
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 03 Feb 2021, 15:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support. X
The conclusion was not a paraphrase. It flowed directly from the premises as follows:
P1: In any industry, tech improvements increase labor productivity
P2: Labor productivity is higher in Parland's industries than Vergia's
C: Parland's industry on the whole is further advanced technologically than Vergia's

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
There are no inconsistencies among the premises

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
Correct.
The author of the passage clearly does not consider other possible causes of an increase in productivity (e.g. more vacations, better workplace environment, etc.)

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed. X
-no...we don't know that productivity already existed ...goes beyond the passage

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
No such distinctions or presuppositions were made
avatar
celan99
avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Last visit: 26 Jan 2022
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 24
Kudos: 7
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 06 Apr 2021, 21:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

P : Tech improvements -> increase labor productivity
P : P industry's productivity > V industry's productivity
C : P Tech improvements > V Tech improvement


Is there any other factors that may affect productivity?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
-> Incorrect. The argument did base it's conclusion on the premise that it has suggested but did not just paraphrase.
In fact, the conclusion presumes far behind what the premise can promise.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
-> Incorrect. There is no other evidence that stands against to original evidence.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
-> Correct, The arguments suggests one option that causes productivity increase but does not consider other factors in making a conclusion.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
-> This option is relevant to cause-effect type of argument and is trying to state that cause-effect should be in opposite direction.

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
-> The argument did not presupposes any information from the conclusion. To make this option viable, the conclusion must be a very general argument, viable to opt to other arguments as well.
User avatar
BLTN
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2020
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 242
Own Kudos:
255
Given Kudos: 216
Posts: 242
Kudos: 255
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 15 May 2021, 01:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

Conditional reasoning:
Technological improvements - sufficient condition "X"
Increase labor productivity - necessary condition "Y"

X ---> Y the overriding point in "conditional reasoning" is that X do not lead/cause Y directly!!!
Y is only on of the passible conditions and "utterly necessary". Rather it is an indicator that necessary condition will happen or happening or happed.

Argument,
Premise: "X" (Technological improvements ) -- > "Y" (Increase labor productivity)
Conclusion "Y" (Increase labor productivity) -- >"X" (Technological improvements )

The conclusion mistake called "mistake reversal". As alluded above Y is necessary condition but not only one!

For instance,
When people take umbrella rain on the street
X (umbrella) -sufficient condition
Y (rain) - necessary condition
Thus, X (umbrella) --- > Y (rain)
Yet, Y (rain) --//--> X (umbrella)
What if I forgot umbrella? What if I do not have an umbrella?

There are only 2 plausible scenarios:
X (umbrella) --- > Y (rain)
and contrapositive
No Y (rain) --- > No X (umbrella)


In sum, the only answer that fix "mistake reversal" issue is C:

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
User avatar
AnishPassi
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
661
 [8]
Given Kudos: 18
Status:GMAT Coach
Affiliations: The GMAT Co.
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: IIMA  (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V41
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: IIMA  (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V41
Posts: 112
Kudos: 661
 [8]
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 25 Jan 2022, 06:10
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Story

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. – Tech improvements → Labor productivity ↑
What is labor productivity? Output per person-hour worked.
What is ‘person-hour’? If 10 people work 40 hours each in a week, that is 400 person-hours.
In this sentence we are provided with a general trend.

In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries. – P’s labor productivity >> V’s labor productivity (I’m thinking: the author might link tech improvements with the higher labor productivity)

Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are. – (Yup.) The author concludes that P must be further advanced in tech than V.

Author’s logic:
Tech improvements lead to ↑ labor productivity. In P, labor productivity is higher than in V (basis). Therefore, In P, tech must be better than in V. (main point)

Gap(s) in logic:
Alright, so tech improvements increase labor productivity. But, can’t other things also increase labor productivity? The passage doesn’t claim that tech improvements is the only way to increase labor productivity. So, if a country has higher labor productivity, it could potentially be because of other reasons too. E.g. Better processes or higher operational efficiency.


Question Stem
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

Framework
What’s a flaw in the argument’s logic? As per the above gap analysis, one flaw could be that the argument is confusing a factor that is enough for an outcome to be something that is the only way to achieve that outcome.

Answer choice analysis

A. It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
Incorrect. What is the conclusion? The last sentence. That P’s industries must be further advanced technologically that V’s are.
Is this statement a paraphrase of any of the supporting statements? In fact, is the conclusion a paraphrase of anything that’s been mentioned before? No, it isn’t. The conclusion is based on two statements, it isn’t a paraphrase of either.


B. It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
Incorrect. First, what does the statement mean?
It presents certain information that is inconsistent with certain other evidence.
Information: Evidence in support of a claim
Other evidence: Evidence in support of the same claim
So, what is inconsistent with what? Two pieces of evidence used to support the same claim.

Alright, now let’s move on to figuring out whether this is a flaw in the argument.
Statements 1 and 2 of the passage do provide support for the claim made in statement 3.
However, the two supports are not inconsistent with each other? These two statements are the only supporting pieces of evidence in the passage.


C. It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
Correct. ‘Tech improvements’ is one possible cause for ↑ labor productivity
There could be other possible causes behind ↑ labor productivity.
The argument does not consider other possible causes.
This is exactly the mistake the argument makes.


D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
Incorrect. What does the option mean?
To understand the option better, I’ll use 2 variables:
X: ‘a condition’
Y: ‘something that happened after’
The argument takes X to be the effect of Y
i.e., Y caused X
And, Y happened after X
In other words, what the argument considered as the cause actually happened after the effect.
Now, let’s evaluate.
The argument considers ‘technological advancement’ as the cause for ‘increased labor productivity. However, did technological advancement happen after labor productivity had already increased? There is no such indication in the argument. Timeline, what happened before/ after are not discussed at all.


E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
Incorrect. ‘Presuppose’: to suppose beforehand
‘Presupposes the truth of the conclusion’: To believe the conclusion to be true even before it is established
‘Distinction’: a difference of contrast between similar things
Does the argument presuppose the truth of the conclusion before it is established? The argument does not, in any part, believe the conclusion to be true before it is made in the end.

The argument is one-directional. No form of ‘presupposition’ going on in the argument.
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 13 Feb 2022, 12:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am confused by the wording "that condition" in the correct answer choice. Does "that condition" refer to the condition of Vergia having a much higher labor productivity? Thank you in advance.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
 [2]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
 [2]
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 13 Feb 2022, 13:04
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
I am confused by the wording "that condition" in the correct answer choice. Does "that condition" refer to the condition of Vergia having a much higher labor productivity? Thank you in advance.
Show more

Vergia's labor productivity is lower, but yes, that is the condition being discussed.

The GMAT likes to do this. It uses a generic label-term for the specific situation in the prompt.

"A phenomenon" "An event" "a curiosity" "a dilemma" and you have to contextualize, "what in the problem could be the phenomenon, event, curiosity, dilemma, etc.?"
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 06:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Parland vs. Vergia



Step 1: Identify the Question

The wording vulnerable to … criticisms in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Flaw question. The argument must have a flawed assumption somewhere, so try to spot it while you deconstruct the argument.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

The argument begins by establishing that tech improvements increase labor productivity (i.e., the output that people produce per hour of work) and that Parland has higher labor productivity than does Vergia. The argument concludes that Parland must therefore be more technologically advanced than Vergia.

TechImpr → LabProd↑

LabProd: in Par > in Ver

© Par more tech advanced than Ver

You’re expected to accept as true the maxim stated in the first sentence: that tech improvements lead to better labor productivity. In terms of comparing Parland (P) and Vergia (V), though, the only premise given is that P has higher labor productivity than V. Is it possible that labor productivity could be high, independently of technological improvements? Sure. The argument does not state that the only way to increase labor productivity is to first have high tech; there could be another explanation for P’s higher labor productivity.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Flaw questions, the goal is to uncover a flawed assumption made by the argument. In this case, the author assumes that the only way to increase labor productivity is to first have technological improvements, but the argument doesn’t say this. Rather, the argument says that if you have high tech, then you will also increase labor productivity—but it provides no information about whether there are other ways to increase labor productivity.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The conclusion goes beyond paraphrasing one of the premises. It concludes something about the relative levels of technological advancement of the two areas; the premises don’t provide any information about technological advancement levels in P and V.

(B) The first piece of evidence, found in the first sentence, is a general maxim about the relationship between tech improvements and labor productivity. The second piece of evidence, found in the second sentence, compares labor productivity in two different regions. The second piece of evidence does not contradict or even directly address the first piece of evidence.

(C) CORRECT. This is the flaw! The author assumes that tech improvements are the only way to improve labor productivity. While this is certainly one possible cause of increased labor productivity, it is not necessarily the only way to improve labor productivity.

(D) This choice says that there’s a flaw in the cause-effect order of information—that is, that the stated cause of something didn’t actually occur before the effect but rather occurred afterwards. The argument does not reverse the order of cause-effect. It is true that tech improvements (cause) lead to labor productivity (effect) and the conclusion relies on that same order: that P’s higher labor productivity indicates that P’s industries must have been more technologically advanced in the first place.

(E) This choice is describing circular logic, in which the author would have already assumed the conclusion to be true when establishing the premises in the first place. The two premises in the argument, however, are just facts. They do not require the conclusion to be true, nor do they already assume that the conclusion is true.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor Updated on: 23 Mar 2022, 11:12
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 23 Mar 2022, 10:27.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 23 Mar 2022, 11:12, edited 9 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman - Per my understanding - (D) is saying the following

Quote:

Y = condition
X = something that happened

After Y already existed, X is the cause of Y
Show more

I dont see anything fundamnetally wrong in saying X is the cause of Y (Even after Y already existed)

I ask because many experts are eliminating just on this fact along THAT it is not possible for X to be the cause of Y (even after Y already existed)

'Assigning' a cause AFTER the event has already happened is very common in fact.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 11:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,931
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,931
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 11:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.
Show more

jabhatta2 Historians saying something after the fact might CAUSE their student to fall asleep, but it won’t cause the fact itself. The fact itself already happened in the past.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 11:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
jabhatta2
For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.

jabhatta2 Historians saying something after the fact might CAUSE their student to fall asleep, but it won’t cause the fact itself. The fact itself already happened in the past.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

Sorry avigutman - i dont understand. I think the red must have been another train of thought - students falling asleep ?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,931
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,931
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 11:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
avigutman
jabhatta2
For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.

jabhatta2 Historians saying something after the fact might CAUSE their student to fall asleep, but it won’t cause the fact itself. The fact itself already happened in the past.

Posted from my mobile device

Sorry avigutman - i dont understand. I think the red must have been another train of thought - students falling asleep ?
Show more

jabhatta2 Just giving you an example of something the historians could have actually caused. They didn’t cause the peace.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 14:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi avigutman - please ignore previous q's. I think i shot completely off track. So please ignore anything previously

How would you interpret (D) between these 2 options

X = condition

Option D is implying the following -->
Quote:
(i)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y leads to X
Show more

OR
Option D is implying the following (almost same but slight difference) -->
Quote:
(ii)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y definitely happened after X
(b) Y leads to X
Show more
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,931
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,931
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor 23 Mar 2022, 14:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi avigutman - please ignore previous q's. I think i shot completely off track. So please ignore anything previously

How would you interpret (D) between these 2 options

X = condition

Option D is implying the following -->
Quote:
(i)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y leads to X

OR
Option D is implying the following (almost same but slight difference) -->
Quote:
(ii)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y definitely happened after X
(b) Y leads to X
Show more

jabhatta2 it’s the latter. D implies that the author claims that Y, which is the effect of X (so X caused Y), was already in place before X happened.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of:

Quote:
something that happened only after the condition already existed.
Show more
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts