One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in

Question

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one's house at all. One call also be in one's house but not at home, if one owns the house but rents it out to others, for example. So one's being at home is not required for one's being in one's own house. 

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument's conclusion and its claim that one can be at home without being in one's house?

A) The claim is required to establish the conclusion
B) The claim represents the point the conclusion is intended to refute.
C) The claim is compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion
D) The claim points out an ambiguity in the phrase "at home"
E) The claim is inadvertently contradicts the conclusion.

rthothad · Answer

Is it D

Claim: House + Backyard = Home

Conclusion: Own house + (Backyard) = Home

july05 · Answer

agree with D. that's what they are trying to do i.e. to say that "at home" is a vague statement

gmataquaguy · Answer

Bumping up this thread for more participation

kayser1soze · Answer

i'll go with E

hamid_shahid · Answer

I 'll go with C

kayser1soze · Answer

anyone else .....

aowaowb · Answer

D for me.

hamid_shahid · Answer

What's the OA? Neone?

AJB77 · Answer

A = One being at home
B = One being inside one's house

Claim states that A can happen with or without B

Conclusion states that A is not required for B to be true.

To me the claim is just a rewording of the conclusion. Because if the conclusion is true, then the claim is true. If the conclusion is false, then B => A negating the claim. 

C would be my choice.

We can also eliminate the other choices:

A is false because the claim is not necessary at all to make the conclusion, it is just a rephrased conclusion.

B is clearly false

D is false because, there is no word-play here

E is also false

gmataquaguy · Answer

AJB, I have a couple of follow up questions:

You say that A can happen  with  or without B 

From the passage content (1st line) we know that A can happen without B. However nothing is said about A can happen with B correct?

All we know is 

A is not dependant on B
B is not dependant on A. 

I just want to make sure that i havent missed anything. 

If the conclusion is negated, then we get A is required for B. If this were true, then like you said it contradicts the B !=> A paradigm. But the question just asks about the claim "one can be at home without being in one's house"  . So how is the claim  compatible   with the falsity of the conclusion? The claim has no effect on the 'falsity" on the conclusion. Ergo its "compatible"? Is that what AC C is saying?

BTW the OA is C. So you've nailed it.

AJB77 · Answer

See, to be honest, I was not 100% sure of C, but I figured with confidence that the rest were definitely wrong and chose C, even if I was a bit shaky. Once I chose C, I tried to make an argument for it.

To me "X is compatible with truth and falsity of Y" means that (If Y -> X AND IF ~Y -> ~X) 

X = "One's being at home  is not  required for one's being in one's own house."

~X = "One's being at home  is  required for one's being in one's own house." which NEGATES the claim "One can be at home and not be in one's house at all"

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in

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