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.
Jun 0408:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
For most test takers, Data Insights is the most challenging section on the GMAT, with test takers scoring several points lower on average on DI than on Quant or Verbal and completing the section with less time to spare.
Jun 0809:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
A powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! date of event Class begins June 8, 2026- 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.. 
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
6 months of access to over 400 hours of video lessons date of event No date.
13 May 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
89% (01:29) correct
11%
(02:05)
wrong
based on 90
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.
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.
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 04 Jun 2026
Posts: 200
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 148
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
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: 04 Jun 2026
Posts: 290
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 92
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
