Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 May 2017, 15:21

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Once at a conference on the philosophy of language, a

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 252
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 9

Once at a conference on the philosophy of language, a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 21:46
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (02:15) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Once at a conference on the philosophy of
language, a professor delivered a lengthy
and tiresome address the central thesis of
which was that “yes” and related slang
words such as “yeah” can be used only to
show agreement with a proposition. At
the end of the paper, a listener in the back
of the auditorium stood up and shouted in
a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted
a complete refutation of the paper.
The listener argued against the paper by
(A) offering a counter-example
(B) pointing out an inconsistency
(C) presenting an analogy
(D) attacking the speaker’s character

Pls explain
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 818
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 21:53
B?

weird question
Manager
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 23:27
rampuria wrote:
Once at a conference on the philosophy of
language, a professor delivered a lengthy
and tiresome address the central thesis of
which was that “yes” and related slang
words such as “yeah” can be used only to
show agreement with a proposition. At
the end of the paper, a listener in the back
of the auditorium stood up and shouted in
a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted
a complete refutation of the paper.
The listener argued against the paper by
(A) offering a counter-example - oh yeah in a sarcastic way is not a counter example.
(B) pointing out an inconsistency - there is no inconcistenct given in the passage
(C) presenting an analogy - analogy can't refute the paper.
(D) attacking the speaker’s character

Pls explain

D

The listener argued against by attacking the speaker's character.
lengthy and tiresome address the central thesis - clearly says the professors character.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 104
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 01:54
in for A
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1265
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 446 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 02:34
A
rampuria wrote:
Once at a conference on the philosophy of
language, a professor delivered a lengthy
and tiresome address the central thesis of
which was that “yes” and related slang
words such as “yeah” can be used only to
show agreement with a proposition
. At
the end of the paper, a listener in the back
of the auditorium stood up and shouted in
a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted
a complete refutation of the paper.
The listener argued against the paper by
(A) offering a counter-example
(B) pointing out an inconsistency
(C) presenting an analogy
(D) attacking the speaker’s character

Pls explain
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 252
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 02:36
ritula wrote:
A
rampuria wrote:
Once at a conference on the philosophy of
language, a professor delivered a lengthy
and tiresome address the central thesis of
which was that “yes” and related slang
words such as “yeah” can be used only to
show agreement with a proposition
. At
the end of the paper, a listener in the back
of the auditorium stood up and shouted in
a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted
a complete refutation of the paper.
The listener argued against the paper by
(A) offering a counter-example
(B) pointing out an inconsistency
(C) presenting an analogy
(D) attacking the speaker’s character

Pls explain

RITULA, WHY NOT B?
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 06:53
In for B

I don't see any 'counter example' but I see an inconsistency. In the beginning the argument states that 'yeah' can be used only to show agreement with.... At the end the listener says the same word 'yeah' to mean something else

Am I missing something?......(Don't tell me Oh yeah!)

Cheers,
Unplugged
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1265
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 446 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 07:03
Well, i chose A for the following reasons:
The professor conveyed that yeah and yes can be used only to agreement. But since the listenerd sarcastically 'oh yeah', he wanted to say that i dnt agree with u still im saying 'yeah'. so he gave a counter example where these two words are used interchangeably even in disagreement. I think the usage of 'sarcastic' conveys this.
This was my interpretation. Rest let us c wht does the OA say.
rampuria wrote:
ritula wrote:
A
rampuria wrote:
Once at a conference on the philosophy of
language, a professor delivered a lengthy
and tiresome address the central thesis of
which was that “yes” and related slang
words such as “yeah” can be used only to
show agreement with a proposition
. At
the end of the paper, a listener in the back
of the auditorium stood up and shouted in
a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted
a complete refutation of the paper.
The listener argued against the paper by
(A) offering a counter-example
(B) pointing out an inconsistency
(C) presenting an analogy
(D) attacking the speaker’s character

Pls explain

RITULA, WHY NOT B?
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1409
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 388 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2009, 13:10
ritula wrote:
Well, i chose A for the following reasons:
The professor conveyed that yeah and yes can be used only to agreement. But since the listenerd sarcastically 'oh yeah', he wanted to say that i dnt agree with u still im saying 'yeah'. so he gave a counter example where these two words are used interchangeably even in disagreement. I think the usage of 'sarcastic' conveys this.
This was my interpretation. Rest let us c wht does the OA say.

After getting rid off C,D,E, it is about letting one of A/B go.

“yes” and related slang words such as “yeah” can be used only to show agreement with a proposition

a listener in the back of the auditorium stood up and shouted in a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted a complete refutation of the paper

Refuation means disagreement not just pointing out a flaw.

Also he uses yeah with oh! which is an exclamation and not a preposition.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 09:47
Can we have the OA pls?

Cheers,
Unplugged
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 238
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 10:31
rampuria wrote:
ritula wrote:
A
rampuria wrote:
Once at a conference on the philosophy of
language, a professor delivered a lengthy
and tiresome address the central thesis of
which was that “yes” and related slang
words such as “yeah” can be used only to
show agreement with a proposition
. At
the end of the paper, a listener in the back
of the auditorium stood up and shouted in
a sarcastic voice, “Oh, yeah?” This constituted
a complete refutation of the paper.
The listener argued against the paper by
(A) offering a counter-example
(B) pointing out an inconsistency
(C) presenting an analogy
(D) attacking the speaker’s character

Pls explain

RITULA, WHY NOT B?

c,d,e can not be an answer.
Now, between A and B: The listener is not suggesting that the professor's argument is inconsistent. What is the inconsistency. The listener does not agree and hence sarcastically asks oh yeah? This refutes the professor's argument that yeah can only be used to agree with a proposition. Hence, the listener offers a counter example and refutes the professor's premise.
_________________

-----------------------
tusharvk

Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 738
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 693 [0], given: 99

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2009, 10:40
IMO A.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 13:00
What's the OA and the source please? Some of these questions are just strange.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 303
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 13:21
My answer is A. He points out a counter-example.
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 117
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 10:12
It is obviously A, and this is obviously an LSAT question or an imitation of an LSAT question.

The professor's claim was that "yes", "yeah" and so on can ONLY be used to indicate agreement with a proposition. That's "proposition", meaning "claim" or "statement", not "preposition", which is a grammatical term. Note that this is a universal if-then claim: If anyone uses the words "yes", "yeah", etc. he or she is necessarily indicating agreement with a statement. Note that the claim is universal, with NO exceptions for tone of voice, context, etc.

The listener clearly used "yeah", and was clearly indicating DISagreement. This is a counterexample: The claim says it cannot happen, but it did. Because the claim was universal, one counterexample is enough to refute it completely.

It is certainly not (B). There was no inconsistency in the professor's argument. It was internally consistent; it consists of a single if-then statement which does not contradict itself. It just happened to be wrong, as the counterexample proves.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 277
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2009, 19:07
Babu Rampuria, it's time for the OA...
Intern
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2009, 01:07
Vote for (A), too.

Still waiting for the OA.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 310
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2009, 16:01
+1 for A. He used an exclamation to show the counter example and he did not show any inconsistency in using the thesis with prepositions.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 826
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 106

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2009, 10:13
agree with a
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Manager
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 55
Location: Washington DC
Schools: Kellogs, Darden, Stern, Tepper
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2009, 13:05
IMO - A, what is the official answer?
_________________

Give and Take Kudos! if you are benefitted from a post!

Re: CR- Yes   [#permalink] 18 Jul 2009, 13:05

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
It is a mistake to think, as ecologists once did, that 1 15 Nov 2011, 14:20
Over time, phrases in the English language that were once 6 08 Jul 2011, 02:19
6 Professor Hartleys new book on moral philosophy contains 11 26 Mar 2008, 14:35
Certain minor peculiarities of language are used 3 24 Feb 2008, 14:24
In many languages other than English there is a word for 3 02 Jun 2007, 21:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by