NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 08 May 2024, 03:24 It is currently 08 May 2024, 03:24
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
G
aurobindomahanty
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Apr 2016
Posts: 66
Own Kudos [?]: 694 [25]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19 (D) IIMA IIMB IIMC (A) WP Carey" 20 (II) McCombs '20 (S) IESE '20
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   24 May 2017, 23:44
1
Kudos
24
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (01:32) correct 64% (01:40) wrong based on 526 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.

Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.

In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to

(A) contradict the conclusion of Rifka’s argument without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka’s implicit premises
(B) deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
(C) imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while rejecting its conclusion
(D) provide a counterexample to Rifka’s generalization
(E) affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka’s argument while remaining noncommittal about its conclusion
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
avatar
B
deep14
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 35
Own Kudos [?]: 40 [2]
Given Kudos: 16
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.7
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 25 May 2017, 00:38
2
Kudos
B. Rifkas argument structure-> Conclusion. Premise.
Now this premise contains two sub premises 1. They aren't lost 2. If they are lost they need help.
Rifka decides to stick to Premise 1 and hence the conclusion
But Craig thinks that they are lost. Therefore he doesn't agree with premise 1 and hence arrives at totally opposite conclusion

Sent from my SM-E700H using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Originally posted by deep14 on 25 May 2017, 00:29.
Last edited by deep14 on 25 May 2017, 00:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
B
AbdurRakib
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2014
Status:I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Posts: 474
Own Kudos [?]: 38902 [1]
Given Kudos: 220
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
Schools: Wharton '20 Yale '20 Tepper '20
GPA: 2.81
WE:Business Development (Real Estate)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   25 May 2017, 00:30
1
Kudos
Top Contributor
aurobindomahanty wrote:
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.
Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to

(A) contradict the conclusion of Rifka’s argument without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka’s implicit premises
(B) deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
(C) imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while rejecting its conclusion
(D) provide a counterexample to Rifka’s generalization
(E) affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka’s argument while remaining noncommittal about its conclusion



Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.
Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to


Rifka: If lost ,then stop and ask
Craig:If lost ,then stop

(A) contradict the conclusion of Rifka’s argument without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka’s implicit premises
(B) deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
(C) imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while rejecting its conclusion
(D) provide a counterexample to Rifka’s generalization
(E) affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka’s argument while remaining noncommittal about its conclusion
avatar
S
adityapareshshah
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2016
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 40 [0]
Given Kudos: 254
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   25 May 2017, 19:10
Hey Experts,

Didn't quiet understand the question and the answer. Please explain.
avatar
B
Ravindra.here
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 36
Own Kudos [?]: 45 [1]
Given Kudos: 334
Location: India
Schools: LBS '18 ISB '19
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V26
GPA: 3.21
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   21 Nov 2017, 09:34
1
Bookmarks
aurobindomahanty wrote:
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.
Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to

(A) contradict the conclusion of Rifka’s argument without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka’s implicit premises
(B) deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
(C) imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while rejecting its conclusion
(D) provide a counterexample to Rifka’s generalization
(E) affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka’s argument while remaining noncommittal about its conclusion


A nice question on conditional Reasoning
I got it wrong in my attempt.
UNLESS INTRODUCES A NECESSARY CONDITION
therefore, If i write the rifika's conclusionWe would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost in sufficient condition and necessary condition form it will be ((( I will choose if , then indicators to be more precise))

IF we need to stop and ask for directions, then we are lost-------1

A contrapositive (( correct reversal )) of this statement will be
IF we are not lost , then we do not need to stop and ask for directions------2

Coming to Craig's Conclusion The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.

Compare this to 1 and 2 we find no similarities

Infact this is the wrong negation of the statement 2
Option b says that deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
Craig is coming to a different conclusion by using mistaken reversal of statement 2. Also he is acting against the premise of rifika we do not need to stop and ask for directions .
avatar
B
Ravindra.here
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 36
Own Kudos [?]: 45 [1]
Given Kudos: 334
Location: India
Schools: LBS '18 ISB '19
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V26
GPA: 3.21
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   21 Nov 2017, 09:42
1
Bookmarks
AbdurRakib wrote:
aurobindomahanty wrote:
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.
Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to

(A) contradict the conclusion of Rifka’s argument without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka’s implicit premises
(B) deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
(C) imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while rejecting its conclusion
(D) provide a counterexample to Rifka’s generalization
(E) affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka’s argument while remaining noncommittal about its conclusion



Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.
Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to


Rifka: If lost ,then stop and ask
Craig:If lost ,then stop

(A) contradict the conclusion of Rifka’s argument without offering any reason to reject any of Rifka’s implicit premises
(B) deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises and thereby arrive at a different conclusion
(C) imply that Rifka’s argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while rejecting its conclusion
(D) provide a counterexample to Rifka’s generalization
(E) affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka’s argument while remaining noncommittal about its conclusion


AbdurRakib
Hi AbdurRakib
Though you arrived at the right answer , the form of conditional reasoning you used is wrong
Unless introduces a necessary condition
IF introduces a sufficient condition , then introduces a necessary condition
To find a conditional indicator such as UNLESS we need to write the part before UNLESS BY removing not, as sufficient
condition and the part with UNLESS ,becomes the necessary condition

therefore, If i write the rifika's conclusion
We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost in sufficient condition and necessary condition form it will be ((( if , then indicators))

IF we need to stop and ask for directions, then we are lost-------1

A contrapositive (( correct reversal )) of this statement will be
IF we are not lost , then we do not need to stop and ask for directions------2

What you wrote as reasoning is mistaken reversal
Please correct me if i am wrong.
User avatar
B
lichting
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [0]
Given Kudos: 169
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   03 Dec 2017, 08:30
Can anyone please explain the correct answer please? I still do not understand
User avatar
B
poorvi125
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2022
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]
Given Kudos: 592
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   16 Oct 2022, 01:15
What an incredible question in a dire need of an expert explanation.

GMATNinja

Please step in :)

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
B
DrAnkita91
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2022
Posts: 58
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 82
Send PM
Re: Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   08 Apr 2024, 09:58
can someone please tell the difference between option b and c?? why is option B better?
User avatar
S
HarshR9
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2023
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [0]
Given Kudos: 26
Send PM
Forum Quiz Mode
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink] New post   15 Apr 2024, 00:48
 
DrAnkita91 wrote:
can someone please tell the difference between option b and c?? why is option B better?

­Hey @DrAnkita91

Let me try to help!

Rifka's argument:
Conclusion -> We do not need to stop and ask for directions.
Reasoning -> We would not need to stop and ask for directions unless we were actually lost.
Implicit premise -> We are not actually lost.
Understanding the Logical play -> If we were actually lost, then, yes, we would need to stop and ask for directions. But we are not actually lost (implicit). So, we do not need to stop and ask for directions (conclusion).

Craig's counter:
The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.

Rifka's implicitly considers that they are not lost. Craig denies the truth of this. He states as a fact that they are lost. Based on his outright denial of Rifka's implicit premise, Craig arrives at a different conclusion to Rifka's ("we need to stop" vs. "we do not need to stop").

Hope you see why choice B is correct.

The issue with choice C -> While Craig does reject Rifka's conclusion, he does not accept the truth of Rifka's premises. As we have seen, Craig denies the truth of Rifka's implicit premise. The issue with choice C is "by accepting the truth of its premises". Not true.

Hope this helps!
___
Harsha
Enthu about all things GMAT | Exploring the GMAT space | My website: gmatanchor.com
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not nee [#permalink]
15 Apr 2024, 00:48
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6922 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions