It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 12:40

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 424

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Location: Aus
It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2004, 11:29
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

22. 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 childrenâ€™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

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2004, 11:46
E.

It has described all of the cause and effect which is just one. All the other has different cause and effect.

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 245

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Location: INDIA

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2004, 11:57
e MAKES SENSE ....

cause -- effect (1) and it is illogical to infer a second effect 2...

cold ( cause) - fever ( effect ) and not diptheria( effect 2)

it is illogical to infer that cold causes diptheria when occurence of fevr means that only cold was the cause.... the argument goes something like this....

I believe only E comes near ... heat( cause) -- to evaporation of water and to jheat any other liqud just like U do water does not neccessarily shw that the liquid evaporates...

hope that helpz !
_________________

the whole worldmakes way for the man who knows wer he's going... good luck

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2004, 12:11
E i believe as well. I hate this type of question, are these common on the GMAT? (i know these parallel reasoning questions are common on the LSAT)

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 179

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2004, 19:50
My Choice is A.

The main argument states that. We shouldnt use a second effect for a particular cause which already has a effect defined.

A -> B ( A is the cause and B is the effect )

Now, we should not assign C, a new effect, to the same cause A.

In answer E we see that multiple causes are assigned to the same effect 'evaporation'.

Only in choice A, we see a proper correlation.

Correct me if my understanding is not right.

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 424

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Location: Aus

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2004, 19:59
krish wrote:
My Choice is A.

The main argument states that. We shouldnt use a second effect for a particular cause which already has a effect defined.

A -> B ( A is the cause and B is the effect )

Now, we should not assign C, a new effect, to the same cause A.

In answer E we see that multiple causes are assigned to the same effect 'evaporation'.

Only in choice A, we see a proper correlation.

Correct me if my understanding is not right.

Thanks

Thanks for the explanation.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2004, 20:16
Went for A too.. it infers some second effect (will donate to some other charities) based on the observation of another effect.

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 217

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2004, 00:28
I wonder, everything I posted yesterday just disappeared...

Will go with A

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

13 Aug 2004, 00:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 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®.