Maas is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Question

Maas is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Maas that are superior, since Maas, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, obviously must have plagiarized the superior ones.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential counter-evidence.
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter where their expertise is irrelevant.
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:  
 
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

thenerdycat · Accepted Answer

IMO it's C.

The author presupposes that Mass cannot write articles of superior quality and then uses the same thing to counter against the evidence presented. I think they call it "circular reasoning" for these types of arguments, if I remember correctly.

RadsAGG · Answer

I would really go with (E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance. since that's exactly what's happening here considering it's assumed that Mass is incapable of better writing because majorly the work is above average.

However, it's the phrase "few isolated" that's throwing me off considering it's not only on the basis of "few isolated" performances that the assumption is being made.

Nidzo · Answer

(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential counter-evidence. 
 The counter-evidence is not ignored, it is claimed to be plagiarized.

(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.  
 It does not generalise from atypical occurences, instead it uses the atypical occurences as evidence that Maas is incapable of producing articles which are above average quality.

(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish. 
 Yes! The writer presupposes that Maas cannot write above average articles and uses higher quality articles being disregarded as plagiarised work without offering any form of evidence.

(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter where their expertise is irrelevant. 
 There are no expert judgments mentioned in the paragraph.

(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance.  
 The paragraph actually infers limits on ability from the majority of the articles and incorrectly uses the few atypical cases as proof of these limits.

ANSWER C

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

This question asks for a criticism of the argument. As a test-taker, you can approach this question in one of two ways: as a Weaken question or as a Method of Reasoning question. Because you’re asked to describe the flaw, you can either look to expose the flaw (Weaken) or to describe the argument (Method of Reasoning), but when you have a choice it’s best to approach these questions as Weaken variety questions. In doing so, you’ll read skeptically, and the flaw in the passage will tend to stand out more because you’re looking critically to find it.

Here, the author concludes in the first sentence that Maas is, at best, an average writer. We know that this is the conclusion because the next sentence seeks to provide “…evidence for this”, signifying that the previous sentence is a conclusion based on that evidence.

In the evidence, however, the author only presents:
 
 Maas has written a few superior articles 
 These articles must have been plagiarized, because: 
 Maas is only an average writer 
 Looking at the evidence, you should see a problem – the author uses his own conclusion as evidence! Take that unsupported opinion out and the only evidence that the author has is that Maas has written only a few superior articles – hardly evidence that he is “only capable of being average”. Choice C accurately reflects this flaw, saying that the author presupposes what he seeks to establish – he uses his conclusion to prove itself.

Perhaps more interesting are the incorrect answer choices, many of which are wrong only because of small flaws:

A) While the author does not allow the counterevidence – Maas’ superior articles – to interfere with his argument, he does not, as the choice says “simply ignore” them. He actually addresses them head on, and just says that they must be plagiarized. He deals with them, and does not “simply ignore” them, so A is incorrect.

B) The author certainly does “generalize” about Maas’ abilities, but he makes those generalizations from the typical occurrences, his wealth of average articles, and not the “atypical” occurrences as the choice says. The atypical occurrences are the superior articles, and the generalization is that he’s only average.

C) Correct.

D) Choice D is fairly far out of scope, as the passage does not talk at all about expert judgment, so this one should be quickly eliminated.

E) Much like choice B, this choice is wrong but not by much. The author certainly does “infer limits on abilities”, but not from “a few isolated lapses”. Those lapses, the atypical occurrences, are his great articles, not his many average articles, so choice E is incorrect in the basis for the author’s inference on Maas’ abilities.

As you can see from this question, difficult Critical Reasoning questions require you to read the answer choices quite carefully, as one or two words can change the meaning of an answer choice. When you’re asked for a description as an answer choice, your description must fit the flaw exactly, so be sure to read each answer choice and be prepared to revisit subtle changes in direction to ensure that you don’t miss a key word that decides correct from incorrect.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Maas is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Maas is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards