It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 05:24

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Posts: 203

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 7

Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Ross '15, Duke '15
GMAT ToolKit User
People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2011, 23:32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

13% (02:28) correct 88% (01:45) wrong based on 7 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing scientific value of discipline. Take, for example, chemistry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists- a group whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early part of chemical theory.

Reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because author:
(a) fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable
(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses.

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 7

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 871

Kudos [?]: 399 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: blemished origins [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2011, 23:53
C vs E. I am leaning towards E since flawed and scientific values can go hand in hand. But the author seems to split the difference in order to make the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 399 [0], given: 123

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 218 [1], given: 13

Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Re: blemished origins [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2011, 00:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
(a) fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable Author doesn’t have to do that – he is saying that blemished origins might mean unscientific discipline- not that unblemished origins will essentially mean scientific value – he doesn’t have to establish that at all for the current argument to hold valid- so this doesn’t weaken or strengthen the present argument

(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned Author criticizes chemistry because of its blemishes origins and doubts its present scientific value. He doesn’t consider the fact that the current theories and practices have changed from those of origins in alchemists- hence his doubting current scientific value is not justified
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration . He is not doing that – he is not using the example to contradict the principle, but to support it.
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect – Similar to A, author doesn’t have to do that essentially – this cant weaken his argument only – he is citing on example – how many examples are sufficient to strengthen is not defined or determinable. So we cant use this logic to criticize his argument.
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses. Author doesn’t do that – he uses discipline in only one sense- a field of study

Kudos [?]: 218 [1], given: 13

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 871

Kudos [?]: 399 [0], given: 123

Reviews Badge
Re: blemished origins [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2011, 00:47
Good reasoning ! thanks....

Kudos [?]: 399 [0], given: 123

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 202

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Re: blemished origins [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2011, 05:14
+1 for B.

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 5

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Posts: 203

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 7

Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Ross '15, Duke '15
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: blemished origins [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2011, 20:33
OA is B

+1 to vivesomnium

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 7

Re: blemished origins   [#permalink] 11 Apr 2011, 20:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by

People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.