Membership in the Theta Delta Psi fraternity is easily obtained by tho

Since option A is your cause of concern, I'll explain only that.

Conclusion - People who lack these social connections because they have not attended high school with one or more current fraternity members will therefore find it difficult to join the fraternity.

A - This option speaks about people who DID go to high school with the TDO fraternity members. Do we care about them?.. Not at all.. To hell with them.. Our concern is about the people who DID NOT go to high school with the TDO fraternity members.. So this option is wrong..

Just have to make sure you understand the main point: No fraternity friend/ social connection = Difficult joining fraternity

A) out of scope
B) out of scope - not concerned with long term, only what leads to successful joining of fraternity
C) out of scope - don't care about non-fraternity members, they have no tie to the argument
D) Correct, the author failed to recognize that there might be other means of successful joining
E) irrelevant, many members from many schools, could be a large fraternity with big diverse population

E) some current members of the fraternity did not go to high school with other members

what is wrong with E. if current students who did not go to high school with other members of fret managed to get into fret.. then how they got into the fret.. definitely by some other possible way.. then what is the difference between D and E, both are pointing to an external factor.

I think I got it.
it is all about how easily one can join fret.
Author is making a point that one, who has not developed one's social connection by not joining High school with existing members, find it difficult to get into fret.

Because (E) does not talk about weather existing members, who did not join high school with other fret members, faced any difficulty to get into the fret. So it does not weaken the reasoning.

Only (D) talks about existence of other easy method by which one can get into the fret.

Thus D is weakening the argument.

I hope this time I made a right analysis.

Glad to see ur reply.However, can u clear the picture with the causation idea.

~(high School) => ~(membership)

Option (A) Says => Cause doesn't occur but still effect occurs i.e. High school => ~(membership)

Plz advice !

The conclusion of this argument is that people who DID NOT attend high school with members will find getting membership difficult.

The conclusion is not that

People who DID attend high school with members will get membership easily. It is just a premise.

The cause over here is "NOT attending high school with frat members" and the effect of this "Difficulty in getting membership".

Option "A" talks neither about the cause nor about the effect.

Hope it is clear.

IMO D
option E nowhere talks about conclusion and its reasoning , " some members of frarenity who joined high school with other " has no impact on conlusion to negate. does it ??
option D clearly talks about main conclusion and negate the only possiblity for obtaining membership other than having strong social connections.Therfore argument displays flawed reasoning .

The argument never does state that the current students without social connections cant get in..Its just that it is difficult..so some members getting in (Might be the ones who did the lot of hard work required) does not weaken the argument..

Dont you think both options are pointing to external factor even if it is hard work.
then, in your opinion What option E suggests?

Hard work is not an external factor..it has been stated in the premises..
E states that the fact that a frat member did not attend the same high school is unaccounted for...This is not true..It is mentioned by the words Easily,Difficult etc..that those who did not attend same high school did get in..but with lot of hard work..

Focus on this sentence. We have a flaw there ---> So have to be some other ways to join the fraternity (not difficult) for people who lack social connections.
A. Does not give us another way. Out of scope.
B. Does not give us another way.
C. Does not give us another way. Out of scope.
D. Good! It does not tell what the way. But tells us that this way exists. We can easily join the fraternity in spite of lack of social connections.
E. Tricky one. But maybe it was difficult for these members to join the fraternity. And it does not reveal any flaw in "People who lack these social connections because they have not attended high school with one or more current fraternity members will therefore find it difficult to join the fraternity."

I am stuck with D and E.
D is much better than E b/c E does not directly connect with the argument, or with "the ease of becoming a membership". E may be a weakener, but D is an assumption. Also, E does not tell whether those members actually attend high schools or not. The word "some" sounds a bit suspicious.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

In this one, getting the right answer depends on your ability to spot an alternative possibility not addressed by the author. In fact, the question stem tells us outright that this is the case. The alternative is fairly subtle, but is nonetheless the key to the question. The argument begins by offering one route through which a student can gain a coveted membership to the Theta Delta Psi fraternity. For those aspirants who attended high school with a current member of the house and developed a strong social connection with that member before college, entrance into the fraternity is easy. People who didn't attend high school with a current member can't easily attain membership through this route, but we were never told that this was the only way to easily get into the fraternity. The author concludes that the unconnected individuals will have difficulty joining the fraternity, but that's only valid if the route the author describes is the only possible easy route. But the author never says that. (D) thus gets at the major point the author fails to consider in issuing her hasty conclusion: the possibility that there might be other ways to easily get into the frat. The social connections described will get one into the frat easily, but nowhere does the author state or imply that such connections are actually necessary; maybe there are other means of easy entry.

(A) First of all, those who attended high school with fraternity members are not necessarily the same people who have forged strong social connections with them. So the "many" referred to here may not even be relevant to the argument. Secondly, even assuming these guys are good high school buddies of the members, the author argues only about what conditions make for easy entry into the frat, and need not consider the possibility that many high school classmates of the members would choose not to join.

(B) Associations with non-fraternity members are not relevant to the argument and fall outside of its scope. Additionally, this choice discusses the long term benefits of such connections; we only care about entrance into the fraternity, not about life-long happiness.

(C) The relative difficulty of building these connections has nothing to do with their necessity for membership. This choice also shares with

(B) an interest in non-fraternity members, whom the author never mentions.

(E) is perfectly consistent with the author's argument, as it totally avoids the issue of the ease with which these "current members" got in. This choice falls outside of the author's scope, which is about the possibility of getting into the fraternity with ease, and we therefore can't fault the author for neglecting the possibility raised here.

An 800 test taker always pays close attention to the author's topic and scope. Here, choice (D) is the only one to address the difficulties of obtaining membership; most of the others fall outside of that scope.

I am not able to wrap my head around this question. The author says that members will therefore find it difficult to join the fraternity. Even s/he states that "it is not impossible, however, it is difficult", no?

So, the author is well aware that there are other means as well. How is that a flaw then?

Would really appreciate if anyone can address this.

Thanks.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.