by: MartyMurray
13 mins
|
|
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.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:56) correct
30%
(02:06)
wrong
based on 566
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It is characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live. Therefore, the greater a writer one is, the more astute one will be in perceiving the basic social and political arrangements of one’s society.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?
(A) It assumes, without providing justification, that members of a group that is part of a larger group possess all of the characteristics possessed by members of the larger group.
(B) It assumes, without providing justification, that because something is sometimes the case it must always be the case.
(C) It assumes, without providing justification, that those artists with political insight do not have insight into matters outside of politics.
(D) It assumes, without providing justification, that only great individuals can make discerning criticisms of their societies.
(E) It assumes, without providing justification, that because people who have one quality tend to have a second quality, those who have more of the first quality will have more of the second.
_________________
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?
(A) It assumes, without providing justification, that members of a group that is part of a larger group possess all of the characteristics possessed by members of the larger group.
(B) It assumes, without providing justification, that because something is sometimes the case it must always be the case.
(C) It assumes, without providing justification, that those artists with political insight do not have insight into matters outside of politics.
(D) It assumes, without providing justification, that only great individuals can make discerning criticisms of their societies.
(E) It assumes, without providing justification, that because people who have one quality tend to have a second quality, those who have more of the first quality will have more of the second.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This is going to be easy, because it’s a fairly common flaw on the LSAT. It’s basically, “All A are B, so if you’re more A, then you’re more B.” That’s not always true. Example: “Drinking whiskey is fun, so the more whiskey you drink, the more fun you’ll have”? Well, for me that’s true until about Jameson number five or maybe six. At a certain point the fun-meter actually starts to go the other way. Jameson number 15, for example, would certainly not be as fun as Jameson number three; actually, it would be zero fun. Another example: “Some rain is good for a golf course, so more rain is always more good for a golf course.” Nah. It’s true that without some water, all golf courses would dry up and disappear. But with too much water, the golf course would be submerged, and would also disappear. Okay, I think you get the point.
The question tells us there’s a flaw, which we are fortunate enough to have already identified. Important: If you haven’t already identified the flaw in the argument, when the question tells you there is a flaw, you damn well better figure out what that flaw is before looking at the answer choices. The answer choices are going to describe a wide range of flaws, and you need to be really sure what you’re looking for if you want to have any chance.
A) No, this would be the answer if the argument had said, “The cast of Dancing with the Stars is, overall, good at dancing. Therefore Ron Artest / Metta World Peace and Martina Navratilova (the first cast members to be kicked off in two recent seasons) are also good at dancing.” That’s certainly flawed, but it’s not the same flaw.
B) This is closer, but this isn’t what we’re looking for. This would be the answer if the argument had said, “Because my grandma won a $400 jackpot at a quarter slot machine last year, I am guaranteed to win money this weekend in Vegas.” Very stupid, but we’re looking for the same stupid.
C) Nah. The argument makes no claim about what other insights these artists and writers may or may not have.
D) No, the argument doesn’t make any claim about what kind of discerning criticisms non-great people may or may not be able to make.
E) Yeah, exactly. Jameson is fun, but more Jameson isn’t always more fun.
Our answer is E.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
General Discussion
Posts: 216
It is characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live. Therefore, the greater a writer one is, the more astute one will be in perceiving the basic social and political arrangements of one’s society.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?
Great artist => specially great writer =>discerning view
So
Greater writer => more discerning view
We need to attack greater and more part. The answer is E.
(E) It assumes, without providing justification, that because people who have one quality tend to have a second quality, those who have more of the first quality will have more of the second.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?
Great artist => specially great writer =>discerning view
So
Greater writer => more discerning view
We need to attack greater and more part. The answer is E.
(E) It assumes, without providing justification, that because people who have one quality tend to have a second quality, those who have more of the first quality will have more of the second.
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
_________________
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
_________________
Moderators:
Announcements
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.
An Emory MBA Powers Growth