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.
Jun 0701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Jun 0612:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
Jun 0803:00 PM PDT
-04:00 PM PDT
15 Full-length GMAT FE mocks with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Master the GMAT with expert live instruction, a personalized study plan, and real-time support. Includes 40 hours of online classes plus 6 months of access to the TTP GMAT OnDemand video course. Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..- Jun 10
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Scoring 715 on the GMAT Focus Edition requires more than just learning formulas, memorizing concepts, or solving hundreds of questions. In this episode, Nishant shares how he improved his GMAT preparation by focusing on application of concepts, and more. 
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
07 Feb 2020, 09:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
66% (01:38) correct
34%
(01:53)
wrong
based on 646
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Philosopher: The eighteenth-century thesis that motion is absolute asserts that the change in an object’s position over time could be measured without reference to the position of any other object. A well-respected physicist, however, claims that this thesis is incoherent. Since a thesis that is incoherent cannot be accepted as a description of reality, motion cannot be absolute.
The argument uses which one of the following argumentative techniques?
(A) attempting to persuade by the mere use of technical terminology
(B) using experimental results to justify a change in definition
(C) relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise
(D) inferring from what has been observed to be the case under experimental conditions to what is in principle true
(E) generalizing from what is true in one region of space to what must be true in all regions of space
The argument uses which one of the following argumentative techniques?
(A) attempting to persuade by the mere use of technical terminology
(B) using experimental results to justify a change in definition
(C) relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise
(D) inferring from what has been observed to be the case under experimental conditions to what is in principle true
(E) generalizing from what is true in one region of space to what must be true in all regions of space
01 Mar 2020, 08:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
The answer is choice C.
Choice A: The well-respected physicist does not use any technical terms. The physicist only says that the thesis is incoherent. ‘Incoherent’ is not a technical term. Incorrect.
Choice B: The passage makes no reference of experiments.
Choice C: The philosopher makes reference of a well-respected physicist to support the claim that motion cannot be absolute.
Choice D: Similar to choice B. Incorrect.
Choice E: The philosopher makes no comparisons/generalizations of any kind. Incorrect.
Choice A: The well-respected physicist does not use any technical terms. The physicist only says that the thesis is incoherent. ‘Incoherent’ is not a technical term. Incorrect.
Choice B: The passage makes no reference of experiments.
Choice C: The philosopher makes reference of a well-respected physicist to support the claim that motion cannot be absolute.
Choice D: Similar to choice B. Incorrect.
Choice E: The philosopher makes no comparisons/generalizations of any kind. Incorrect.
21 May 2026, 08:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
STEP 1: Strip the argument to skeleton
Premise 1:
A well-respected physicist claims the thesis is incoherent.
Premise 2:
If a thesis is incoherent, it cannot be accepted as a description of reality.
Conclusion:
Therefore, motion cannot be absolute.
STEP 2: What is the actual move?
The argument is NOT proving incoherence independently.
It is saying:
“An expert says this thesis is incoherent.”
→ therefore we accept that premise
→ then use the rule about incoherent theories
→ conclude motion is not absolute.
So the key technique is:
using expert authority to support a premise.
That is exactly answer C.
CORRECT ANSWER: (C)
relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise
Why?
Notice carefully:
The physicist’s statement is not the conclusion.
The physicist’s statement is evidence/premise support.
The philosopher relies on the physicist’s authority instead of proving the incoherence directly.
Classic authority-based support.
DETAILED OPTION ANALYSIS
(A) attempting to persuade by the mere use of technical terminology
Why tempting:
Words like “absolute,” “incoherent,” “description of reality” sound technical/philosophical.
Why wrong:
The argument is not saying:
“Believe me because vocabulary sounds fancy.”
There is actual logical structure:
expert says incoherent
+
incoherent theories cannot describe reality
→ conclusion.
So technical language is not the argumentative technique.
Eliminate A.
(B) using experimental results to justify a change in definition
Why wrong:
No experiments are mentioned.
Also no definition changes.
The argument is about whether motion can be absolute, not redefining motion.
Eliminate B.
(C) relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise
Perfect match.
The phrase “well-respected physicist” is the giveaway.
The argument depends on expert credibility for the premise:
“the thesis is incoherent.”
That is exactly appeal to expert authority.
Correct.
(D) inferring from what has been observed to be the case under experimental conditions to what is in principle true
Why wrong:
No experimental observations exist in the stimulus.
Nothing about lab conditions or observed cases.
Eliminate D.
(E) generalizing from what is true in one region of space to what must be true in all regions of space
Why wrong:
Nothing about regions of space.
No spatial generalization.
Eliminate E.
FAST GMAT RECOGNITION TRICK
Whenever you see:
“a scientist/expert/professor/authority says X”
and the argument uses that as support,
immediately suspect:
appeal to authority / relying on expert opinion.
That is the core move here.
ONE IMPORTANT NUANCE
This is NOT necessarily a flawed argument.
GMAT method-of-reasoning questions usually ask:
“What technique is used?”
not
“Is the reasoning valid?”
So you only identify the move.
The move = expert authority used as support for a premise.
Premise 1:
A well-respected physicist claims the thesis is incoherent.
Premise 2:
If a thesis is incoherent, it cannot be accepted as a description of reality.
Conclusion:
Therefore, motion cannot be absolute.
STEP 2: What is the actual move?
The argument is NOT proving incoherence independently.
It is saying:
“An expert says this thesis is incoherent.”
→ therefore we accept that premise
→ then use the rule about incoherent theories
→ conclude motion is not absolute.
So the key technique is:
using expert authority to support a premise.
That is exactly answer C.
CORRECT ANSWER: (C)
relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise
Why?
Notice carefully:
The physicist’s statement is not the conclusion.
The physicist’s statement is evidence/premise support.
The philosopher relies on the physicist’s authority instead of proving the incoherence directly.
Classic authority-based support.
DETAILED OPTION ANALYSIS
(A) attempting to persuade by the mere use of technical terminology
Why tempting:
Words like “absolute,” “incoherent,” “description of reality” sound technical/philosophical.
Why wrong:
The argument is not saying:
“Believe me because vocabulary sounds fancy.”
There is actual logical structure:
expert says incoherent
+
incoherent theories cannot describe reality
→ conclusion.
So technical language is not the argumentative technique.
Eliminate A.
(B) using experimental results to justify a change in definition
Why wrong:
No experiments are mentioned.
Also no definition changes.
The argument is about whether motion can be absolute, not redefining motion.
Eliminate B.
(C) relying on the authority of an expert to support a premise
Perfect match.
The phrase “well-respected physicist” is the giveaway.
The argument depends on expert credibility for the premise:
“the thesis is incoherent.”
That is exactly appeal to expert authority.
Correct.
(D) inferring from what has been observed to be the case under experimental conditions to what is in principle true
Why wrong:
No experimental observations exist in the stimulus.
Nothing about lab conditions or observed cases.
Eliminate D.
(E) generalizing from what is true in one region of space to what must be true in all regions of space
Why wrong:
Nothing about regions of space.
No spatial generalization.
Eliminate E.
FAST GMAT RECOGNITION TRICK
Whenever you see:
“a scientist/expert/professor/authority says X”
and the argument uses that as support,
immediately suspect:
appeal to authority / relying on expert opinion.
That is the core move here.
ONE IMPORTANT NUANCE
This is NOT necessarily a flawed argument.
GMAT method-of-reasoning questions usually ask:
“What technique is used?”
not
“Is the reasoning valid?”
So you only identify the move.
The move = expert authority used as support for a premise.
