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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
09 Nov 2019, 17:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
66% (02:03) correct
34%
(02:19)
wrong
based on 785
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a rope, and each item of evidence is like a strand of that rope. Just as additional pieces of circumstantial evidence strengthen the body of evidence, adding strands to the rope strengthens the rope. And if one strand breaks, the rope is not broken nor is its strength much diminished. Thus, even if a few items of a body of circumstantial evidence are discredited, the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength.
The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that body
(C) fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited
(D) offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similarities
(E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
The reasoning in the lawyer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the strength of a body of evidence is less than the sum of the strengths of the parts of that body
(C) fails to consider the possibility that if many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited
(D) offers an analogy in support of a conclusion without indicating whether the two types of things compared share any similarities
(E) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
20 Nov 2019, 17:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
From ManhattanPrep
When flaw answer choices begin with "takes for granted", "presumes w/o justification", or "assumes without warrant", you can evaluate whether the rest of the answer is correct or not by asking yourself, "Did the author NEED to assume this?"
Basically, those three phrases turn the idea that follows into the answer to a Necessary Assumption question. So when I see "takes for granted", "presumes", etc., I evaluate the phrase that follows just like I would a Nec. Assump question, including a deep suspicion of extreme language and a willingness to apply the Negation Test.
(A) is definitely something the author needs to assume to keep his analogy intact.
The author was assuming that each strand of a rope and each piece of circumstantial evidence is roughly equally load-bearing. If we negate (A), it says "some items in a body of circumstantial evidence ARE significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body".
That would weaken the lawyer's argument. As Noah was saying before, it's possible that opposing counsel could discredit one (or more) of the most critical pieces of circumstantial evidence, thereby greatly weakening the overall body of evidence.
(A) is NOT comparing circumstantial evidence to other types of evidence.
(A) is dealing with the issue of this question: does every piece of circumstantial evidence contribute roughly equally to the overall body of evidence?
====
When a Flaw answer choice begins with "fails to consider", "neglects the possibility", "ignores the possibility", you can evaluate whether the rest of the answer is good by asking yourself, "if true, would this idea weaken the argument?"
So let's do that with (C).
Pretend you're answering a Weaken question for this argument and (C) says:
(C) If many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited.
Does that weaken the argument?
No. The author's conclusion is that a few items being discredited wouldn't significantly affect the strength of the overall body.
The author would probably agree with (C) ... the author thinks the more pieces that are discredited, the more the body of evidence is weakened.
When we're trying to argue with a conclusion that is essentially a conditional statement, we need to find an objection that accepts the first half but denies the second half.
So we want an objection that would say "it's possible that only a few items of a body would be discredited, and the overall body of evidence would NOT retain its basic strength."
(A) gives us this objection: if some pieces of evidence are significantly more important than others, then it's possible that discrediting a few pieces COULD do major damage to the overall body of evidence.
In terms of what these quantity words specifically mean, "a few" generally means 3 or 4.
"Many" is not a specific quantity. In most LSAT questions, we are wise to treat "many" like "some" (because we do NOT want to equate "many" with "most").
But clearly, in normal usage, "many" and "a few" are not equivalent terms, so (C) is outside the scope of the author's conclusion.
(Total tangent: "few" is not the same as "a few". If I say "a few of my friends like Green Day", then there are a handful of friends I have who like Green Day. If I say "few of my friends are zombies", it just means less than half of my friends are zombies ... it doesn't necessarily mean that I really DO have any zombie friends. "Few" = a minority, just as "most" = a majority. "Most" is compatible with "all". "Few" is compatible with "none". "A few" is NOT compatible with "none".)
When flaw answer choices begin with "takes for granted", "presumes w/o justification", or "assumes without warrant", you can evaluate whether the rest of the answer is correct or not by asking yourself, "Did the author NEED to assume this?"
Basically, those three phrases turn the idea that follows into the answer to a Necessary Assumption question. So when I see "takes for granted", "presumes", etc., I evaluate the phrase that follows just like I would a Nec. Assump question, including a deep suspicion of extreme language and a willingness to apply the Negation Test.
(A) is definitely something the author needs to assume to keep his analogy intact.
The author was assuming that each strand of a rope and each piece of circumstantial evidence is roughly equally load-bearing. If we negate (A), it says "some items in a body of circumstantial evidence ARE significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body".
That would weaken the lawyer's argument. As Noah was saying before, it's possible that opposing counsel could discredit one (or more) of the most critical pieces of circumstantial evidence, thereby greatly weakening the overall body of evidence.
(A) is NOT comparing circumstantial evidence to other types of evidence.
(A) is dealing with the issue of this question: does every piece of circumstantial evidence contribute roughly equally to the overall body of evidence?
====
When a Flaw answer choice begins with "fails to consider", "neglects the possibility", "ignores the possibility", you can evaluate whether the rest of the answer is good by asking yourself, "if true, would this idea weaken the argument?"
So let's do that with (C).
Pretend you're answering a Weaken question for this argument and (C) says:
(C) If many items in a body of circumstantial evidence were discredited, the overall body of evidence would be discredited.
Does that weaken the argument?
No. The author's conclusion is that a few items being discredited wouldn't significantly affect the strength of the overall body.
The author would probably agree with (C) ... the author thinks the more pieces that are discredited, the more the body of evidence is weakened.
When we're trying to argue with a conclusion that is essentially a conditional statement, we need to find an objection that accepts the first half but denies the second half.
So we want an objection that would say "it's possible that only a few items of a body would be discredited, and the overall body of evidence would NOT retain its basic strength."
(A) gives us this objection: if some pieces of evidence are significantly more important than others, then it's possible that discrediting a few pieces COULD do major damage to the overall body of evidence.
In terms of what these quantity words specifically mean, "a few" generally means 3 or 4.
"Many" is not a specific quantity. In most LSAT questions, we are wise to treat "many" like "some" (because we do NOT want to equate "many" with "most").
But clearly, in normal usage, "many" and "a few" are not equivalent terms, so (C) is outside the scope of the author's conclusion.
(Total tangent: "few" is not the same as "a few". If I say "a few of my friends like Green Day", then there are a handful of friends I have who like Green Day. If I say "few of my friends are zombies", it just means less than half of my friends are zombies ... it doesn't necessarily mean that I really DO have any zombie friends. "Few" = a minority, just as "most" = a majority. "Most" is compatible with "all". "Few" is compatible with "none". "A few" is NOT compatible with "none".)
General Discussion
09 Nov 2019, 21:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Akela
IMO answer is A.
Each strand in a rope may be contributing equally to the overall strength of the rope but the same cannot be told of circumstantial evidence where some may be more significant than the other in strengthening the body of evidence.
