Last visit was: 15 Jul 2025, 00:23 It is currently 15 Jul 2025, 00:23
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
ykaiim
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Last visit: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 519
Own Kudos:
5,819
 [128]
Given Kudos: 40
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Posts: 519
Kudos: 5,819
 [128]
14
Kudos
Add Kudos
114
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,487
 [21]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,487
 [21]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ghentu
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Last visit: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
17
 [13]
Posts: 29
Kudos: 17
 [13]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
9
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
PTK
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Last visit: 06 Oct 2022
Posts: 1,139
Own Kudos:
2,191
 [2]
Given Kudos: 622
Status:mission completed!
GPA: 3.77
Products:
Posts: 1,139
Kudos: 2,191
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Reasons are:
draws a general conclusion - which is "So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is." This may be a case that old goverment had prisoned even more than 30 journalist before 1994, but at the end of term of old party ( beginning of the 1994) most of them had been already afraid of the strict goverment regulations that has stop to criticize it and only 6 of them were imprisoned.
So, the old Gov may not be more tolerant of the criticism than the new one. Thus, the journalist's conclusion is general.

on the basis of a sample of only a few cases - the new goverment came recently [ so many cases could not occur since then] even if those cases count for 30 journalists.
User avatar
nverma
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Last visit: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
526
 [3]
Posts: 155
Kudos: 526
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ykaiim
Journalist: In late 1994, the present government of the Republic of Bellam came into power. Each year since then, about thirty journalists have been imprisoned for printing articles that criticize the government. In 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.

The politician challenges the journalist’s argument by doing which of the following?
(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist’s data
(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion
(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group


For Me the contenders are B and C.

E) The given stem is not an example of generalization.
A) Out of scope
D) The given stem is not an example of generalization.

Now B and C

C) Journalist's data "In 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government" are correct.

B) is OK. Journalist assumes that number of arrest is directly proportional to the intolerance of the government.
User avatar
serhio
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Last visit: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 154
Own Kudos:
58
 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Strategy
Schools:Ross 2013
GPA: 3.85
WE 1: Pharmaceutical industry 5 years, C level
Posts: 154
Kudos: 58
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the politician provides new evidence, so it is B
User avatar
seekmba
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Last visit: 25 Sep 2014
Posts: 626
Own Kudos:
3,554
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 626
Kudos: 3,554
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i would pick (B).

Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument

The politican says only six journalists criticized the government and now journalists routinely do....which means he introduces new evidence (only six journalists criticized and all were imprisoned) which sabotages journalist's argument that old government was more tolerant than the new one.
User avatar
dixitraghav
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Last visit: 19 May 2017
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 17
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V41
Posts: 76
Kudos: 141
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
B is the ans. as the assumption of the journalist depends upon the imprisonment of 30 journalist , that the govt is intolerant, but the politician presented an evidence that undermined this assumption.
C - out of scope as the politician the does not doubt the accuracy of the imprisonment of 30 journalist
D- wrong as the politician did not imply that journalist is taking very few cases.
A,E -out of scope
User avatar
tryingharder
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Last visit: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
79
 [2]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 56
Kudos: 79
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
both B and C are close. will rule out C coz the politician is not questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented by the journalist. The politician agrees that since 1994 thirty journalists under the new govt and in 1994 six journalists under the old govt were imprisoned, howevr he undermines journalist’s assumption by introducing evidence that now journalists routinely criticize govt.
User avatar
gautrang
Joined: 11 May 2010
Last visit: 30 Sep 2020
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
587
 [5]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 108
Kudos: 587
 [5]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Well, in 1994, the percentage is 6/6 = 100%. The Old Gov "kills" 100% those who dare defy.

After 1994, about 30 die every year, but "rountinely do" mean that a lot of jounarlists do nowday (a lot, like 100s), so the percentage is < 100%.

Thus actually, the new Gov is more tolerant than the old one.

This is what B implies.

B rules
User avatar
Zatarra
User avatar
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Last visit: 07 May 2016
Posts: 310
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 149
 Q49  V42
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Posts: 310
Kudos: 361
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is a Find the assumption question . We must find the Assumption in the Journalists argument by reading the Politicians statement.
We mustnt complicate the question by bringing in numbers and percentages.
The Journalist is simply assuming that the same number of people who protested against the old regime as the number in the subsequent years in protest against the new one
User avatar
Juz2play
Joined: 09 Jun 2013
Last visit: 09 Oct 2017
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
235
 [2]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.86
WE:Analyst (Advertising and PR)
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 37
Kudos: 235
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.
User avatar
jaituteja
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Last visit: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
174
 [1]
Given Kudos: 41
Posts: 79
Kudos: 174
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Juz2play
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.


Hi,

For E...
That is what the argument says:
Journalist says: In1994,under old govt. six journalist were imprisoned.
Since 1994, under new govt. 30 journalist were imprisoned.

Politician: In 1994, it was 6/6 case.
Since 1994, it is not 30/30 case.. it could be 30/100.

Hence , under new govt. journalist have advantage.

This is what E talks about. it says that
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group.
some 30 is the some members of the group(100).. and journalist assumes that 30/30 is applied to all members of that group..

To reiterate: Politician replies by Stating that information is regarding some ppl out of the group and does not apply to all members of that group...


Still unclear why E is incorrect...

Experts please help..!!!

Thanks,
Jai
User avatar
pqhai
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Last visit: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 868
Own Kudos:
8,828
 [1]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Posts: 868
Kudos: 8,828
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jaituteja
Juz2play
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.


Hi,

For E...
That is what the argument says:
Journalist says: In1994,under old govt. six journalist were imprisoned.
Since 1994, under new govt. 30 journalist were imprisoned.

Politician: In 1994, it was 6/6 case.
Since 1994, it is not 30/30 case.. it could be 30/100.

Hence , under new govt. journalist have advantage.

This is what E talks about. it says that
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group.
some 30 is the some members of the group(100).. and journalist assumes that 30/30 is applied to all members of that group..

To reiterate: Politician replies by Stating that information is regarding some ppl out of the group and does not apply to all members of that group...


Still unclear why E is incorrect...

Experts please help..!!!

Thanks,
Jai

Dear Jai

You read the politician's argument too fast, I guess. Thus, you misunderstood the idea of the politician a bit.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do

Note: routinely is frequently

Be careful with the blue part. What does he mean? The politician challenges the journalist who said more journalist imprisoned, less tolerant the Government was. It means the journalist just focused on the number of journalists imprisoned, but the politician does not agree with that. He maintained that the number of journalists imprisoned may be THE SAME (6 people), but these journalists criticized the government MORE FREQUENTLY. --> Thus, there were more cases of journalists imprisoned than in 1994.

Let see E:
E is not the main point that the politician wanted to convey. In fact, he may agree that six journalists imprisoned is a total group (100% as you said). He just criticized the assumption of the journalist who concerned about the number rather than the frequency.

Hence, E is not the answer.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
dentobizz
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Last visit: 12 Jun 2021
Posts: 401
Own Kudos:
1,917
 [2]
Given Kudos: 370
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Posts: 401
Kudos: 1,917
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
hsbinfy
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Last visit: 13 Nov 2017
Posts: 191
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: Schulich '16
Schools: Schulich '16
Posts: 191
Kudos: 316
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
it is actually a new evidence the politician provided.

So B.
User avatar
chesstitans
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Last visit: 20 Nov 2019
Posts: 990
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2,562
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
Posts: 990
Kudos: 1,899
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Undoubtedly, A and C are out.
Next, both D and E are unlikely to hold b/c they talk about the general and specific samples of cases.
B seems correct. Indeed, B is a right answer.
User avatar
smmunna
Joined: 09 Jan 2018
Last visit: 22 Apr 2019
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
20
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,059
Posts: 12
Kudos: 20
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ykaiim
Journalist: In late 1994, the present government of the Republic of Bellam came into power. Each year since then, about thirty journalists have been imprisoned for printing articles that criticize the government. In 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.

The politician challenges the journalist’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist’s data

(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion

(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group
J's conclusion is that the new government has more serious reasons than the old government. The
old government has a 100% rate.

It is obvious that the logical error of J is that the absolute percentage of absolute is large. More rigorous if if the new government period of 1,000 reporters JJYY, the government has closed 13? 1.3% obviously can not be said to be more severe than 100%
A provides data for earlier periods. No such thing is wrong,
c question the accuracy of the evidence J The data is not allowed to say otherwise, but P does not question the accuracy.
D is somewhat confusing, but J does not commit a partial logic error.
E is also the same and has nothing to do with partiality.
User avatar
mallya12
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Last visit: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 125
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 93
Posts: 125
Kudos: 23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Someone please explain answer choice B. Why D and E are wrong??
User avatar
Hoozan
Joined: 28 Sep 2018
Last visit: 27 Jun 2025
Posts: 689
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 248
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33 (Online)
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
Products:
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 689
Kudos: 667
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle please could you help me with (E)
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7353 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts