Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 01:31 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 01:31

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92893
Own Kudos [?]: 618671 [6]
Given Kudos: 81586
Send PM
VP
VP
Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Posts: 1212
Own Kudos [?]: 1728 [1]
Given Kudos: 67
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GPA: 3.97
WE:Project Management (Investment Banking)
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Feb 2020
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 2642
Own Kudos [?]: 7775 [2]
Given Kudos: 55
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Send PM
Re: The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Shubhanshi06 The author is arguing that just because a LOT of tobacco smoke harms you, we can't conclude that a LITTLE bit does. They support this with an analogy to another case: LOTS of vitamin D is harmful, but a LITTLE is actually good.

So the basic idea is to demonstrate that in at least one case, we can't reason from large quantities to small quantities, because small amounts are good and large amounts are bad. The author uses this to conclude that we shouldn't do this in a specific case: tobacco inhalation.

We see the same thing in E. The author says that we can't conclude that a LITTLE television watching is BAD just because a LOT of television watching is bad. Why? Because a LOT of sleep is bad, even though a reasonable amount of sleep is good.

Answer choice A seems close, but it argues that small quantities may simply do nothing at all, so it doesn't as closely mirror the "small quantities are actually good" idea from the original.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 171
Own Kudos [?]: 125 [1]
Given Kudos: 545
GMAT 1: 640 Q38 V40
GMAT 2: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 3: 570 Q31 V38
GMAT 4: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.75
Send PM
Re: The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does not prove that the much smaller amount of tobacco smoke inhaled by nonsmokers who share living space with smokers harms the nonsmokers to some degree. Many substances, such as vitamin A, are toxic in large quantities but beneficial in small quantities.

In which one of the following is the pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?


(A) The fact that a large concentration of bleach will make fabric very white does not prove that a small concentration of bleach will make fabric somewhat white. The effect of a small concentration of bleach may be too slight to change the color of the fabric.

(B) Although a healthful diet should include a certain amount of fiber, it does not follow that a diet that includes large amounts of fiber is more healthful than one that includes smaller amounts of fiber. Too much fiber can interfere with proper digestion.

(C) The fact that large amounts of chemical fertilizers can kill plants does not prove that chemical fertilizers are generally harmful to plants. It proves only that the quantity of chemical fertilizer used should be adjusted according to the needs of the plants and the nutrients already in the soil.

(D) From the fact that five professional taste testers found a new cereal product tasty, it does not follow that everyone will like it. Many people find broccoli a tasty food, but other people have a strong dislike for the taste of broccoli.

(E) Although watching television for half of every day would be a waste of time, watching television briefly every day is not necessarily even a small waste of time. After all, it would be a waste to sleep half of every day, but some sleep every day is necessary.


Very high quality question! I have found that with similar reasoning questions I can only get them right if I diagram out the argument and answer choice arguments with letters

The argument follows : Lots A =Harm x---> small A= harm ex : lots D = harm but little d x---> harm

(A) Lots of A = works x---> little A works a little this might be tempting, but we can do better

(B) Small A=good x---> lots of A = better out
(C) lots of A = bad x=> Any A bad, circumstances...... ok this arguments changes at the end out
(D) 5 people = good x=... ok if we are talking about 5 different elements this is already not the same argument
(E) lots of A = bad x==> little A = bad, example. this structure is identical to the structure of the argument. so OA = E
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17208
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The fact that tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers harms the smokers does [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne