It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause wh

S_O_S
Some one plz help & take it forward ( i have given my understanding but no ans )

basic cause >> characteristic 1 >> ( effect 1: observed )
basic cause >> characteristic 2 >> ( effect 2 : inferred )

It is illogical to infer a second and different effect (effect 2 : inferred) from a cause which is known only by one particular effect (effect 1: observed).[ cause is known by observed effect 1...author claims that it is illogical to infer effect 2...hence effect 2 cannot happen ]
This is incorrect (means negate above underlined statement.....effect 2 can happen) because the inferred effect (effect 2 : inferred) must necessarily be produced by some different characteristic (characteristic 2) of the cause ( basic cause) than is the observed effect ( effect 1: observed ), which already serves entirely to describe the cause ( means...observed effect 1 already serves entirely to describe the basic cause)

So in short

it is not only effect 1 but effect 2 is also possible from cause, because characteristic 2 exists.

(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.
observed effect 1 : anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society
inferred effect 2 : individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital ( refer I would guess..hence inferred effect)....but no mention of characteristic..
(B) The radioactive material caused a genetic mutation, which, in turn, caused the birth defect. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
observed effect 1 : birth defect because of >> characteristic 1 : The radioactive material leading genetic mutation
inferred effect 2 (refer therefore) : birth defect because of >> characteristic 1 : The radioactive material leading genetic mutation
this is circular reasoning...our reasoning is not circular hence dropped
(C) The tiny, unseen atom is the source of immense power. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
observed effect 1: immense power because of characteristic 1 : tiny atom
inferred effect 2 ( refer...It must be) : complex structure that produces this power

(D) The city orchestra received more funds from the local government this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
observed effect 1: The city orchestra received more funds
inferred effect 2 (refer ...Clearly) : this administration is more civic-minded

(E) If I heat water, which is a liquid, it evaporates. If I heat hundreds of other liquids like water, they evaporate. Therefore, if I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate.
observed effect 1 : [heat liquid water > it evaporates] & [heat other 100 liquids like water > they also evaporate]
inferred effect 2 (refer...Therefore): I heat any liquid like water, it will evaporate

AM i right ? heavy weights plz jump in to help....

I think ans is A

Cause: charitable
Effect: donation
Just because a peron donates in X also means he would donate in Y
assumption that it is CHARITABLE nature that prompts someone to donate and no other characteristic of a person.
However,if the person donates in X for one reason that reason might not apply for Y
and hence such an argument is wrong.
Very similar to the arg in stimulus where it assumes that only one characteristic of
an cause wholly makes up the effect.This assumption is wrong

IMO A.
my take:
The line of reasoning in stem is that X causes Y. Therefore X must also cause Z.
This is almost similar to the reasoning in A.
Hope that helps.

Cause gives effect.
Hence cause can give another effect.

a) Good guy gives to charity.
Hence good guy must also volunteer.

Answer is A

I will leave this question behind as a big fat question mark.

(A) An anonymous donor gave a thousand dollars to our historical society. I would guess that that individual also volunteers at the children’s hospital.

What is the cause and what is the effect here? I see nothing but a fact. A gave dollars to B. Cause? Not applicable. Effect? I guess the society was grateful.

Over.

Can someone help me understand how option D was eliminated? Thank you in advance!

GMATNinja

I am not able to connect with option A. Can you please help me out?

Lots of questions on this one!

To start with a caveat: you're very unlikely to encounter a question exactly like this on the GMAT. While LSAT questions are really helpful practice materials, some of them are a bit more difficult than your average GMAT questions and some follow patterns that you probably won't see on the GMAT. This one falls into both of those categories. That said, you can approach this one just like you'd approach any GMAT CR question.

Here's the question stem:

From this, we know that the author is describing a logical error. In our answer choices, we're searching for an argument that makes the error that the author describes.

The author lays out the error in the first sentence of the passage: "It is illogical to infer a second and different effect from a cause which is known only by one particular effect."

Here, the author describes a single cause that is only known by a single effect -- the author has no issue with this. What the author DOES have a problem with is inferring a second effect to the same cause.

As an example, let's say that you know that eating too much ice cream causes an upset stomach. This is the ONLY effect that you know about eating ice cream. You can't then infer that eating ice cream ALSO causes a second effect, such as feeling jittery.

So, which answer choice infers a second effect from a single cause?

In (A), the anonymous donor known to be the "cause" of one effect: a donation of $1000 to the historical society. Then, a second effect -- volunteering at the children's hospital -- is attributed to the same cause.

This is the error that the author described, so keep (A).


Here, the "cause" is the local government, and the "effect" is that the orchestra received more funds this year than ever before. From this, an inference is made about the cause -- the argument in (D) makes and inference that "this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones."

This might be a logical flaw, but it's not the error that the author describes. Instead of a second effect being inferred, additional info about the cause is being inferred.

(D) doesn't make the same flaw as the author describes in the passage, so eliminate (D).

(A) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

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.