tenben
Dear Experts, Kindly suggest how to solve such questions. I chose C because that was similarly worded. But i got wrong. Please help
Hello,
tenben. I see at least two Expert replies above. I hope that you would have looked them over before calling in another Expert. You said that answer choice (C) "was similarly worded" to the passage. I feel the need to point out that close enough is
not good enough on the GMAT™. Still, in the interest of showing you just how (C) does not work, I will add a little color to the prompt and test each answer choice in the same way.
broall
Only senior citizens enjoy doing the daily jumble. So Aesha must not be a senior citizen, because she does not enjoy doing the daily jumble.
Which of the following arguments exhibits the same flawed reasoning as the above?
First off, notice the structure:
only + noun +
verb + object;
conclusion (
not noun because
not verb + object). We want to find an answer choice that closely fits this chain of logic. Or, if you prefer,
A + B;
B →
Abroall
A. Only in March does Rodrigo choose to holiday in Spain. It is March, but Rodrigo is in Japan. So he must not be going to Spain.
The latter half is all mixed up. To parallel the original argument, we would expect something along the lines of the following:
So it must not be March, because [Rodrigo/he] is not choosing to holiday in Spain.broall
B. Only a true pet lover could adopt Marley. Thus, since Michael is not adopting Marley, he must not be a true pet lover.
Granted, the conclusion structure is inverted from the original—here, we get the premise first, then the conclusion—but the pieces fit. It is the logical components that need to match, not necessarily their order.
broall
C. Only geologists enjoy the amethyst exhibit at the town fair. So Mr. Franz must not enjoy the amethyst exhibit, because he is not a geologist.
The conclusion should be that Mr. Franz must not be a geologist, based on the fact that he does not enjoy the amethyst exhibit at the town fair.
So is a conclusion marker and
because a premise marker. This answer choice has the two parts in the wrong place at the end, so it does not parallel the original argument.
broall
D. Since the animal in front of us is a penguin it follows that we are in Antarctica, since one only encounters penguins in the wild when one is in Antarctica.
This does not even remotely parallel the given argument, and there are no negations to be seen. I would not even bother trying to fix it.
broall
E. Only the best chefs can make compelling vegan escargot. So Rasheed must be able to make compelling vegan escargot, since he is one of the world’s best chefs.
The beginning starts off well enough, but in the latter portion, we expect to see a conclusion based on a negation of the premise:
Only the best chefs can make compelling vegan escargot. So Rasheed must not be one of the best chefs, since he cannot make compelling vegan escargot.Perhaps this all makes more sense now. Although there are not too many Similar Reasoning questions in the official (GMAT™) question bank compared to other question types, it can still be worthwhile to understand the logical underpinnings of the passage, a vital skill for success in CR.
Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew