GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Jul 2018, 14:31

### 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

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

# It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 261
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2009, 23:21
3
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

66% (02:04) correct 34% (02:15) wrong based on 223 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate
_________________

"CEO in making"

Current Student
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 342
Location: India
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2009, 13:14
Only A goes on the same line.

rest all related outcome of first to the input of second and thus this forms a chain of events. Only A makes unwarranted assumption.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 680
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2009, 04:21
IMO E...
really tricky/toughy..

It took me too long to evaluate.

My Explanation:
Error in passage: One cause => one effect and can't be defined by other effects

Same error in (E)
Heat(cause)=> defined by effect(evaporation)
In last the conclusion heat can cause only evaporation(one effect) and nothing else(no other effects)

_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1249
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2010, 15:02
sudeep wrote:
IMO E...
really tricky/toughy..

It took me too long to evaluate.

My Explanation:
Error in passage: One cause => one effect and can't be defined by other effects

Same error in (E)
Heat(cause)=> defined by effect(evaporation)
In last the conclusion heat can cause only evaporation(one effect) and nothing else(no other effects)

That is not correct. Any more takers??
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 258
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2010, 15:23
IMO Only B and E are contenders..
But still not clear with the final answer..!!
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1282
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2010, 09:59
i narrowed it to B and D.

picked (D)

what is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 166
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2010, 10:17
I think ans is A

Cause: charitable
Effect: donation
Just because a peron donates in X also means he would donate in Y
assumption that it is CHARITABLE nature that prompts someone to donate and no other characteristic of a person.
However,if the person donates in X for one reason that reason might not apply for Y
and hence such an argument is wrong.
Very similar to the arg in stimulus where it assumes that only one characteristic of
an cause wholly makes up the effect.This assumption is wrong
CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2657
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2010, 17:22

I m not able to understand the stimulus.
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Intern
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 15
Re: LSAT - Parallel Structure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 04:14
1
IMO B
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1264
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2012, 23:10
1
IMO A.
my take:
The line of reasoning in stem is that X causes Y. Therefore X must also cause Z.
This is almost similar to the reasoning in A.
Hope that helps.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 360
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 02:36
2
IMO B...can any one explain

OA??

tenaman10 wrote:
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate

_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1193
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 06:12
1
Cause gives effect.
Hence cause can give another effect.

a) Good guy gives to charity.
Hence good guy must also volunteer.

_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Manager
Joined: 14 May 2017
Posts: 67
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2017, 11:52
Think (E) could be correct here.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?

(A) No effect mentioned here
(B) Here one cause has two effects which strengthens the argument
(C) This choice tells us that only one cause ( highly complex structure ) can be the reason for an effect ( source of immense power ) without considering other possible causes. FOCUSES ON CAUSE
(D) Similar to (C)
(E) We know that in general heating liquids (cause) could possibly have only one effect ( Evaporation ). But this may not be necessarily true.

Director
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 673
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2018, 01:08
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect. This is incorrect because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate

1st statement : C --(causes)--> E1 hence E2 is not caused by C.
2nd statement : This is wrong . If C --(causes)--> E1 then other characteristic of C --(can cause)--> E2.

A states
Mr A --caused--> Donation to historical society
Mr A --Can also cause--> volunteering.
Hence i choose A.
Still am not that cool enough to mark A. But other options are not good enough. A is just dumb but other options are dumber.
GMATNinja can you please explain where i might be wrong.
Re: It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from   [#permalink] 30 Apr 2018, 01:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.