Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1408:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions..- Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
13 May 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
100% (01:35) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 31
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It is in fact illegal to make use of prison labor from foreign countries that have poor human rights records. However, if our company does not do so, others will.
Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
The OA will be automatically revealed on Thursday 14th of May 2026 07:00:37 PM Pacific Time Zone
Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
The OA will be automatically revealed on Thursday 14th of May 2026 07:00:37 PM Pacific Time Zone
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 14 May 2026
Posts: 128
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 107
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
Products:
13 May 2026, 19:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Core structure:
Now check choices.
A) Says company policy may be broken to avoid losses.
Different justification. Not “someone else would do it.”
B) Hunting deer is illegal. Defense: if defendant had not hunted them, someone else would have.
Exact same structure.
C) Says no endorsement actually occurred.
Denies wrongdoing instead of justifying it.
D) Says people traditionally object to the law.
Appeal to tradition, different logic.
E) Says many landlords violate the law.
Just because others do it, not because someone else would do it anyway.
Answer: B
- Action is illegal/wrong.
- Defense: “If I don’t do it, someone else will.”
Now check choices.
A) Says company policy may be broken to avoid losses.
Different justification. Not “someone else would do it.”
B) Hunting deer is illegal. Defense: if defendant had not hunted them, someone else would have.
Exact same structure.
C) Says no endorsement actually occurred.
Denies wrongdoing instead of justifying it.
D) Says people traditionally object to the law.
Appeal to tradition, different logic.
E) Says many landlords violate the law.
Just because others do it, not because someone else would do it anyway.
Answer: B
BongBideshini
Joined: 25 May 2021
Last visit: 14 May 2026
Posts: 219
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 83
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: HBS '27 Stanford '27 Wharton '27 Sloan '27
GPA: 3.8
WE:Engineering (Government)
Products:
13 May 2026, 22:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Original argument structure:
Yes, action X is illegal/wrong.
But:
"If we don't do it, someone else will." Therefore implied justification:
Doing X is acceptable anyway.
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
>Says policy is violated, but negotiation is necessary to avoid losses. This is a necessity argument, not a “someone else would do it” argument.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
>Yes, hunting deer is illegal. But if the defendant had not done it,
Someone else would have.
Same flawed justification structure.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
>Argues no violation actually occurred. Different structure.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
> Says law exists, but people traditionally object to it. No “someone else would do it” logic.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
> Says many landlords violate the law. This choice doesn't suggest that if landlords hadn't raised the rent, someone else would have stepped in and raised it for them.
Answer: B
Yes, action X is illegal/wrong.
But:
"If we don't do it, someone else will." Therefore implied justification:
Doing X is acceptable anyway.
A) Negotiating with striking workers does, in fact, go against the company’s policies. However, the company must negotiate in some cases, if it wants to prevent major losses.
>Says policy is violated, but negotiation is necessary to avoid losses. This is a necessity argument, not a “someone else would do it” argument.
B) Hunting deer in this forest is indeed illegal. However, if the defendant had not hunted these deer someone else certainly would have done so.
>Yes, hunting deer is illegal. But if the defendant had not done it,
Someone else would have.
Same flawed justification structure.
C) It is true that military officers are forbidden to endorse political candidates. But if the Colonel's interview is read closely, it will be clearly seen that no actual endorsement was made by her in this case.
>Argues no violation actually occurred. Different structure.
D) In Argentina, refusing to vote is indeed illegal. However, the country has a long tradition of objecting to the law.
> Says law exists, but people traditionally object to it. No “someone else would do it” logic.
E) It is true that the law forbids landlords to increase a tenant's rent without three months’ notice. But there have been many landlords who have done so, regardless.
> Says many landlords violate the law. This choice doesn't suggest that if landlords hadn't raised the rent, someone else would have stepped in and raised it for them.
Answer: B
ExpertsGlobal5
