Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Dec 2018, 22:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (02:10) correct
35%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 930
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists, a fact of which people in the tourist industry are well aware. People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry. Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.
The reasoning in the arguments is most vulnerable to:
(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.
The reasoning in the arguments is most vulnerable to:
(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.
31 Dec 2018, 08:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists, a fact of which people in the tourist industry are well aware. People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry. Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.
The reasoning in the arguments is most vulnerable to:
(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.(even if support is provided for the claim, doesn't make the argument vulnerable)
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.( argument suggests that excessive development causes the damage to the environment, but people would never knowingly damage the seaside environment)
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.( No, it talks about people is tourist industry)
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.( Yes, argument is vulnerable to this possibility,because argument clearly says that people in tourist industry wound not knowingly damage the the industry, but they may unknowingly damage the industry)
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.( No)
Will go with choice D
Thanks
The reasoning in the arguments is most vulnerable to:
(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.(even if support is provided for the claim, doesn't make the argument vulnerable)
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.( argument suggests that excessive development causes the damage to the environment, but people would never knowingly damage the seaside environment)
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.( No, it talks about people is tourist industry)
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.( Yes, argument is vulnerable to this possibility,because argument clearly says that people in tourist industry wound not knowingly damage the the industry, but they may unknowingly damage the industry)
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.( No)
Will go with choice D
Thanks
28 Jan 2019, 02:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists, a fact of which people in the tourist industry are well aware. People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry. Therefore, they would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.
Type- flaw
Core- People in the tourist industry would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.
Pre-thinking- just because the tourist industry wouldn't knowingly do something doesn't mean that they might not do it unintentionally
(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.- incorrect; Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.- incorrect; the argument is explicitly about whether the tourist industry will cause damage to the environment
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.- incorrect; the argument never shifts from a few members to all members
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.- Correct
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.- incorrect; the argument does not claim any event as inevitable
Answer D
Type- flaw
Core- People in the tourist industry would never knowingly damage the seaside environment and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment thus have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.
Pre-thinking- just because the tourist industry wouldn't knowingly do something doesn't mean that they might not do it unintentionally
(A) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.- incorrect; Such development also hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists
(B) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.- incorrect; the argument is explicitly about whether the tourist industry will cause damage to the environment
(C) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.- incorrect; the argument never shifts from a few members to all members
(D) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.- Correct
(E) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.- incorrect; the argument does not claim any event as inevitable
Answer D
