Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek em

Good call Jeetesh,

Indeed, the most salient aspect of this passage is the fact that a correlation is being read as causation.

Conclusion: CompTech needs to pay as much as Microfirm or people will leave.

Premise: People at Microfirm get paid a lot of money and don't leave.

Assumption: Correlation = Causation (i.e. Microfirm employees stay only because of money)

A. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

Conclusion: Gina won't be penniless is she avoids gambling.

Premise: Robert doesn't gamble and hasn't been penniless

Assumption: Correlation = Causation (i.e. Robert isn't penniless only because he avoids gambling)

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.
Problem: This is just backwards reasoning, nothing like the passage.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.
Problem: Same as B, only there something DID NOT happen, and here it DID.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.
Problem: This one wears the clothes of causation = correlation, but it isn't actually. Remember, for that trick to work, they have to describe actual events (i.e. Dave practices a lot of squash and is great at squash, therefore one must practice a lot of squash to be great at squash). But this actually tells us "Diligent practice results in perfection", which means that YES, "one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection". This is just causation=causation.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.
Problem: The last phrase here invalidates it, because it goes a step further than the passage. In the passage, a recommendation was made, but not an anti-recommendation like this one.

Hope that helps!

OA is

Show Spoiler

D

.

Not to take issue, but there is no way the correct answer to that question is D. I'd bet a hefty sum on it. There's absolutely no similarity between the passage and answer choice D.

Could you recheck, or cite the source?

I completely agree with you.
In fact, my reasoning matches yours.
Source, strangely, is Peterson.

No worries! Silly Peterson...

The answer is D. Keep in mind that we are asked to identify the answer choice that parallels the flaw in the stimulus. So step 1 would be to identify the flaw in the stimulus. What is the flaw? Simply put, the argument is structured as follows: A ---> B; Not A ----> Not B.

Premise: High salary ---> employees won't leave
Conclusion: Not high salary ---> employees will leave

This is clearly a case of mistaken negation, that is the author negated both sides without switching them. The correct contrapositive of the premise would have been:

Employees leave ---> Not high salary. That is, if Comptech's employees leave, it would mean that Comptech did not raise their salaries to match those of Microfirm's.

Now take a look at D:

Premise: Diligent practice ---> perfection
Conclusion: No diligent practice ---> no perfection (if one MUST practice diligently to achieve perfection, as this answer choice states, it follows that if one does not practice diligently, one cannot achieve perfection).

This answer choice clearly parallels the flaw in the stimulus/author's argument. As a side note, the correct contrapositive for the premise should have been:

Not perfection ----> Did not practice diligently. That is, if one did not achieve perfection, then he/she did not practice diligently.

Now examine answer A closely:

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless

Premise: Not gamble ----> not penniless
Conclusion: Not gamble ---> not penniless

A---->B; A -----> B

Even if this answer choice contains a flaw, it does not parallel the flaw in the author's argument. For this to be the correct answer, the conclusion should have been:

Gamble ---> penniless. That is, if Gina gambles, she will become penniless.

Hope this helps.

Regarding the bolded and italicized portions in your explanation to answer D, I think you are a bit off there. "Diligent practice results in perfection" does not equate to "one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection". Diligent practice could be just one of many ways to achieve perfection, and I don't necessarily have to practice diligently to achieve perfection. It's just like the statement "If I study hard, I will get an A, therefore I must study hard to get an A". In reality, even if I don't study hard, I may still be able to get an A, maybe by cheating, or paying off my professor, etc.

The Answer to Question is indeed 'D'.
Let me try to explain:

"Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer."

Here the assumption is Raising salary is the only way to keep the employees from moving out.

Consider 'D':
Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

Same here the assumption is Only diligent practice leads to perfection.

Where as in 'A':Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless. The refraining is not compulsary to be penniless.It's just one possibility.

Hope this helps.
TX,
Ismail.

Hey All,

Hmm. I hear people's points, but I still disagree. The problem, as I see it, with D, is that it does not involve two separate entities, which is the whole point. Instead, it discusses a general concept. But the main subject is extrapolating out from one company to make a conclusion about another company. In A, a conclusion is extrapolated out from one person to another. In D, there is simply an idea, which is then generalized. I truly don't think this works. If you want to blame the question, you can do that, but I would stand by A as a better choice than D.

-t

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.