Last visit was: 11 Sep 2024, 21:43 It is currently 11 Sep 2024, 21:43
Toolkit
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

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.

# No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Status:PhD trained. Education research, management.
Posts: 805
Own Kudos [?]: 2005 [17]
Given Kudos: 203
Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2017
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2019
Posts: 128
Own Kudos [?]: 94 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Intern
Joined: 14 Sep 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [3]
Given Kudos: 8
Re: No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Why 'C' is not right?

A person who is staying in a house and not paying the rent may not be necessarily be the owner. He may be a defaulter.

Similar to the question, Lester might not have received the raise but it doesn't mean that she received a poor performance evaluation.

Intern
Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 89
Location: India
GRE 1: Q165 V164
Re: No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor [#permalink]
Quote:
No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor performance evaluation and a raise. Lester has not received a raise, so it must be that he has received a poor performance evaluation.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

The given argument is illogical since it is possible that if do not own a house, can live rent free in it. For. e.g. parents own the house, but children live rent free in it.

Quote:
(A) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. So, since my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house, it must be that they do not own it.
This argument is logical, since if paying rent, then cannot own the house.

Quote:
(B) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. My next-door neighbors own their house. Therefore, it must be that they do not pay rent on it.
This argument is logical, since if own the house then cannot pay rent on it too.

Quote:
(C) My neighbors have not paid any rent on their house. Since anyone who lives in a house but does not rent it owns it, it must be that they own it.
The highlighted part is not parallel in structure to No one has received both a poor performance evaluation and a raise.

Quote:
(D) My next-door neighbors do not own their house. Since no one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it, it must be that my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house.
Parallel to the given stimulus and hence the correct answer option.

Quote:
(E) Anyone who lives in a house but does not own it pays rent on it. My next-door neighbors do not own their house. Therefore, it must be that they pay rent on it.
The highlighted part is not parallel in structure to No one has received both a poor performance evaluation and a raise.
Manager
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Posts: 137
Own Kudos [?]: 155 [0]
Given Kudos: 77
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34
GPA: 3.8
WE:Analyst (Consulting)
Re: No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor [#permalink]
L rest:- PP and Raise. 1G doesnt get raise , then she must have PP.

similarly in house both thing rent and ownership. if someone doesn't pay rent,, then they must owner.
Or if someone doesn't;t owns the house must pay the rent.
both cases are true/Correct.

(A) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. So, since my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house, it must be that they do not own it.
its about paying the rent -incorrect
(B) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. My next-door neighbors own their house. Therefore, it must be that they do not pay rent on it.
same as A - incorrect
(C) My neighbors have not paid any rent on their house. Since anyone who lives in a house but does not rent it owns it, it must be that they own it.
Incorrect- mention that they don't rent means they own it .
(D) My next-door neighbors do not own their house. Since no one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it, it must be that my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house.
similar reason - COrrect as was first thought in prethinking
(E) Anyone who lives in a house but does not own it pays rent on it. My next-door neighbors do not own their house. Therefore, it must be that they pay rent on it.
same problem as C - incorrect

IMO-D
CrackVerbal Representative
Joined: 02 Mar 2019
Posts: 269
Own Kudos [?]: 279 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Pre-thinking:

Let
Poor performance evaluation = X
Raise = Y

The argument is as follows:

X --> Not (Y)
Y --> Not (X)

We know that if A --> B, then Not (A) does not imply Not (B). The flawed argument is exactly that ie;

Lester Not (Y) --> X [ie; Not (Not (X))]. Therefore, we need another argument which states A --> B and Not (A) --> Not (B). Let us examine the answer options, in which:

Let
Owns house = X; Pays rent = Y.

(A) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. So, since my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house, it must be that they do not own it.
The argument states:

X --> Not (Y)
Y --> Not (X)
Since, Y --> Not (X)
This does not replicate the flaw in the original argument. Eliminate.

(B) No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. My next-door neighbors own their house. Therefore, it must be that they do not pay rent on it.
The argument states:

X --> Not (Y)
Y --> Not (X)
Since, X --> Not (Y)
This does not replicate the flaw in the original argument. Eliminate.

(C) My neighbors have not paid any rent on their house. Since anyone who lives in a house but does not rent it owns it, it must be that they own it.
The argument states:

Not (Y) --> X
Since, Not (Y) --> X
This does not replicate the flaw in the original argument. Eliminate.

(D) My next-door neighbors do not own their house. Since no one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it, it must be that my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house.
The argument states:

X --> Not (Y)
Y --> Not (X)
Since, Not (X) --> Y
This replicates the flaw in the original argument and is the correct answer.

(E) Anyone who lives in a house but does not own it pays rent on it. My next-door neighbors do not own their house. Therefore, it must be that they pay rent on it.

The argument states:

Not (X) --> Y
Since Not (X) --> Y
This does not replicate the flaw in the original argument. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17737
Own Kudos [?]: 877 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor [#permalink]
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.
Re: No one who works at Leila's Electronics has received both a poor [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7056 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts