Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 14 Sep 2026, 09:02 |
It is currently 14 Sep 2026, 09:02 |
|
|
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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
d_patel
Joined: 16 May 2024
Last visit: 24 Nov 2024
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
Schools: ESSEC MFin "26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q89 V84 DI79 
16 Jul 2024, 04:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Fareena:
1. People are ignorant about financial planning
2. Leads to problem in old age.
3. Goverment should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund.
Paul:
1. People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.
2. Responsibility of individual, not government.
We need to find flaws in Fareena and Paul's logic.
1. Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
We can argue that this is the flaw of Paul's logic. Paul assumes that individual responsibility is the only solution for money saving. Saving incentives could lead to solution.
2. Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
Both provides valid reasoning for their conclusion. Eliminate.
3. Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
This flaw can be found in Fareena's logic. She considers ignorant about financial planning is the sole reason behind old age money saving problem. Unexpected expanses or people's believe in only worrying about today could lead to same problem of money saving.
4. Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.
No mention of multiple phenomenon. Eliminate.
5. Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
No ambiguous term. Eliminate.
Final answer - 3 for Fareena's flaw and 1 for Paul's flaw.
1. People are ignorant about financial planning
2. Leads to problem in old age.
3. Goverment should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund.
Paul:
1. People should be able to spend their money as they see fit.
2. Responsibility of individual, not government.
We need to find flaws in Fareena and Paul's logic.
1. Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
We can argue that this is the flaw of Paul's logic. Paul assumes that individual responsibility is the only solution for money saving. Saving incentives could lead to solution.
2. Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
Both provides valid reasoning for their conclusion. Eliminate.
3. Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
This flaw can be found in Fareena's logic. She considers ignorant about financial planning is the sole reason behind old age money saving problem. Unexpected expanses or people's believe in only worrying about today could lead to same problem of money saving.
4. Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.
No mention of multiple phenomenon. Eliminate.
5. Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
No ambiguous term. Eliminate.
Final answer - 3 for Fareena's flaw and 1 for Paul's flaw.
captain0612
Joined: 10 Apr 2020
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 113
Given Kudos: 130
Location: India
Schools: Ross '26 (D) IESE '26 (D) IMD (D) HEC Sept '26 (D)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q90 V82 DI78
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 7
Products:
Schools: Ross '26 (D) IESE '26 (D) IMD (D) HEC Sept '26 (D)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q90 V82 DI78
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Posts: 113
16 Jul 2024, 05:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Flaw in Fareena’s reasoning : Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
Flaw in Paul’s reasoning : Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
Fareen's conclusion: Government should mandate that all working individuals invest at least 20% salary
Evidence : This investment can be used when individuals become old
Evidence : Currently, due to lack of financial planning, many find themselves destitute in their old age
Flaw: Fareena assumes with out evidence that 1. This mandate will work for all and irrespective of the individual's family background, finnancial requirements etc.. 2. That all working individuals more or less can be defined generically
So, since the above is assumed and not provided as an evidence, the above can be considered as flaw in Fareena's reasoning.
Out of the choices:
only Choice 3 matches the reasoning: Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
Paul's conclusion : Individuals should have their freedom when it comes to spending and investing
Evidence : It's individual's responsibility and not governments
Flaw: There is gap between Paul's and Fareena's argument. While Paul's conclusion states that individuals should have the freedom, but the freedom comes at a cost, impacting the financial life at an elder age. Paul fails to reason this out.
There I think that Paul's reasoning is out of line and irrelevant
hence Choice 2, Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion
Flaw in Paul’s reasoning : Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion.
Fareen's conclusion: Government should mandate that all working individuals invest at least 20% salary
Evidence : This investment can be used when individuals become old
Evidence : Currently, due to lack of financial planning, many find themselves destitute in their old age
Flaw: Fareena assumes with out evidence that 1. This mandate will work for all and irrespective of the individual's family background, finnancial requirements etc.. 2. That all working individuals more or less can be defined generically
So, since the above is assumed and not provided as an evidence, the above can be considered as flaw in Fareena's reasoning.
Out of the choices:
only Choice 3 matches the reasoning: Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon.
Paul's conclusion : Individuals should have their freedom when it comes to spending and investing
Evidence : It's individual's responsibility and not governments
Flaw: There is gap between Paul's and Fareena's argument. While Paul's conclusion states that individuals should have the freedom, but the freedom comes at a cost, impacting the financial life at an elder age. Paul fails to reason this out.
There I think that Paul's reasoning is out of line and irrelevant
hence Choice 2, Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion
16 Jul 2024, 05:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
*Note: I think there is an orthographic error in this answer choice, "Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon". Since there is the word "multiple" before, indicating a plurality, it should be "phenomena" and not "phenomenon"*
This was a very tough question so I'm going to share my reasoning and thought process.
Af first I didn't have any clear answers that stood out.
Then I was tempted by the answer choices
"Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem." for Fareena
and
"Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon." for Paul.
The reason for these is that Fareena used the word mandate which made me feel like she only believed there to be one solution, hence why it is forced. However, upon closer inspection, I found that nothing in the text actually indicates that she presumes there to only be one solution. She simply believes the government should move forward with a solution, the solution that she gives, but not that that solution is the only solution to the stated problem. So this answer choice falls apart.
With this answer choice not working, I now asked myself what the correct choice is for Fareena and if the answer choice for Paul is still valid. When I looked at Fareena's argument closer, I noticed that she begun with a very bold claim, that "most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning". Shen then very quickly jumped to a subsidiary conclusion that "as a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities". It occurred to me then that there was a big assumption that linked these two sentences, which was that people found themselves destitute in their old age solely or mainly due to one factor, which was their ignornace when it came to financial planning. Fareena does not even leave an opportunity for there to be other factors which could be the reason for why elder people are not able to ford basic necessities. She clearly believes that the cost of living crisis among the elderly is attributed primarily to lack of financial planning.
The answer choice that fits this flow in her reasoning is
"Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon."
Now that the answer choice I had originally intended for Paul was used, I had to look at others. I was not convinced by them but one of the answer choices was confusing me and I had to inspect it further. In his argument, Paul states "I think your conclusion is wrong", and then brings up his counter-argument in response to Fareena. In order to evaluate his argument, we need to understand what exactly Fareena's conclusion is.
This is how I broke up her argument:
Claim: Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning.
Subsidiary Conclusion: As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities.
Argument: The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund.
Conclusion: This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.
The conclusion here is that the step, to proceed with Fareena's argument of mandating 20% investment of monthly income, would take care of the issue of financial planning and solve the cost of living crisis.
Paul says that the conclusion is wrong and then proceeds to argue that people should be able to spend their money as they see fit and that it is the individual's responsibility to manage their finances, not the government's. This argument has nothing to do with conclusion. The conclusion is that the step would be effective in solving the cost of living crisis. Paul does not explain how it would not be effective, he simply states that people should have agency over their own money. Paul is referring to Fareena's argument that the government should mandate individuals invest 20% of their monthly income, hence why he is countering with "people should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit". He is however not addressing her conclusion that in doing so, the issue of lack of financial planning contributing to the cost of living crising would be solved. He is addressing the manner in which this problem is solved but not the conclusion that 'this step would solve this problem'
Therefore I believe the answer choice to be "Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion."
So my answer choices were
"Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon." for Fareena
and
"Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion." for Paul
This was a very tough question so I'm going to share my reasoning and thought process.
Af first I didn't have any clear answers that stood out.
Then I was tempted by the answer choices
"Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem." for Fareena
and
"Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon." for Paul.
The reason for these is that Fareena used the word mandate which made me feel like she only believed there to be one solution, hence why it is forced. However, upon closer inspection, I found that nothing in the text actually indicates that she presumes there to only be one solution. She simply believes the government should move forward with a solution, the solution that she gives, but not that that solution is the only solution to the stated problem. So this answer choice falls apart.
With this answer choice not working, I now asked myself what the correct choice is for Fareena and if the answer choice for Paul is still valid. When I looked at Fareena's argument closer, I noticed that she begun with a very bold claim, that "most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning". Shen then very quickly jumped to a subsidiary conclusion that "as a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities". It occurred to me then that there was a big assumption that linked these two sentences, which was that people found themselves destitute in their old age solely or mainly due to one factor, which was their ignornace when it came to financial planning. Fareena does not even leave an opportunity for there to be other factors which could be the reason for why elder people are not able to ford basic necessities. She clearly believes that the cost of living crisis among the elderly is attributed primarily to lack of financial planning.
The answer choice that fits this flow in her reasoning is
"Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon."
Now that the answer choice I had originally intended for Paul was used, I had to look at others. I was not convinced by them but one of the answer choices was confusing me and I had to inspect it further. In his argument, Paul states "I think your conclusion is wrong", and then brings up his counter-argument in response to Fareena. In order to evaluate his argument, we need to understand what exactly Fareena's conclusion is.
This is how I broke up her argument:
Claim: Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning.
Subsidiary Conclusion: As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities.
Argument: The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund.
Conclusion: This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.
The conclusion here is that the step, to proceed with Fareena's argument of mandating 20% investment of monthly income, would take care of the issue of financial planning and solve the cost of living crisis.
Paul says that the conclusion is wrong and then proceeds to argue that people should be able to spend their money as they see fit and that it is the individual's responsibility to manage their finances, not the government's. This argument has nothing to do with conclusion. The conclusion is that the step would be effective in solving the cost of living crisis. Paul does not explain how it would not be effective, he simply states that people should have agency over their own money. Paul is referring to Fareena's argument that the government should mandate individuals invest 20% of their monthly income, hence why he is countering with "people should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit". He is however not addressing her conclusion that in doing so, the issue of lack of financial planning contributing to the cost of living crising would be solved. He is addressing the manner in which this problem is solved but not the conclusion that 'this step would solve this problem'
Therefore I believe the answer choice to be "Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion."
So my answer choices were
"Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon." for Fareena
and
"Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion." for Paul
Bunuel
16 Jul 2024, 05:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Fareena’s reasoningBaselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem. Yeah, Fareena thinks the this should be mandated, There might be lot of other options where there can be better returns. Hence there is a flawReasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion. No, It is inline. Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon. Hmm, But not relevant to F's reasoning. Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomena. IrrelevantFails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term. Irrelevant
Hence A is the best choice.
Paul’s reasoningBaselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem. Irrelevant. Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion. No, It is inline. Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon. Hmm, Yeah failed to consider the effects in P's reasoning. Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomena. IrrelevantFails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term. Irrelevant
Hence C
IMO A,C
