A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the

thanks for a solid explanation ! ! .. It's crystal clear now why " A " is correct .

Great explanation, Now I understand the logic. Totally got your ideal.
Thanks!

i somewhere get a feeling that A has not been structured properly to fit as an answer
i agree that proving that analysis is wrong does not prove that conclusion is wrong but A is not hinting on those lines
i feel that A wud have been the answer had the argument been structured as follow :

premise 1 :A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics

premise 2 : however ,a second laboratory is not able to prove the findings of previous analysis

conclusion : hence the the second laboratory concluded that the findings of previous analysis are faulty
now A wud have ideally been the answer .

but given the argument i guess A does not fit the bill

kindly tell us the source of this question

You incorrectly interpreted the second premise.

The second firm found errors in the way the first form performed the analysis. This means we CANNOT assume the second firm did any actual research on the new chemical element. They therefore cannot make any definitive claim on the first firm's conclusion, only on the validity of their conclusion.

In other words, disproving a positive does NOT logically lead to proving a negative. (check out Cartesian logic for more of this kind of stuff)

The answer must be A..
Research analysts found something, than someother research companies found errors in the what was intially carried out by the researchers....
Point is the new research did nt put fwd anythn new except the fact that earlier analysts made some mistake...

Hence A must be the answer

Consider kudos If my post helps!!!

Archit

I know A is true, but would sb plz let me know why C is wrong??
tnx in advnc

Hi Omraan. Very good question.

How to attack the question.

This is a flaw of reasoning question, in order to get the correct answer you have to generalize the stimulus to abstract pattern. That makes this kind of question be one of the most difficult types in CR.

I would generalize the stimulus as followings:

A makes a claim that X is true
B found that A has errors
B makes a claim that X is NOT true

The problem here is:
X itself is CORRECT, B, however, found that A (the scientific method) has errors ==> B concludes X is NOT true. That is wrong reasoning. If B wants to prove X is NOT true, B has to find evidences that show X is NOT true, not evidences that show A has errors in its method.

A says: presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.
"Something" = the fact: metals currently used in space electronics can be replaced with this element
"not proved to be true" = the recent analysis does not show the fact is true (the analysis has error)
"then it must be wrong" = the fact that the analysis shows must be wrong.

The research by an independent laboratory only shows the recent analysis has error ==> conclude that the fact "metals currently used in space electronics can be replaced with this element" is wrong ==> Flaw in reasoning.
Hence , A is the correct. answer.


Similar example:
Galileo Galilei discovered that the Earth moves around the Sun.
The Church found that Galileo Galilei had some errors in his method
The Church concluded that "the Earth moves around the Sun" is wrong.

You see the same flaw of reasoning? The fact that "the Earth moves around the Sun" itself is ALWAYS correct.

C is wrong, why?

C says: fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

Please see the logical reasoning below:
A makes claim that X is true
B also makes a claim that X is not true
B concludes that X is not true.

==> Flaw of reasoning: Because B makes conclusion based on B's analysis only, so B fails to consider the possibility of further accurate analyses.

This flaw of reasoning DIFFERS from that in the question.

Back to the question, C says "there should be more further accurate analyses"
==> C attacks the argument by focusing on errors of analysis, not errors of the scientific method ==> C does not show the flaw of reasoning we need.

Hope it helps.

Hello guys,
Can anyone explain why B is wrong?I understand that A is also good,but am unable to eliminate B.

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.