Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 27 May 2017, 19:01

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [1] , given: 0

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 12:14
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

69% (02:03) correct 31% (01:29) wrong based on 91 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.
The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well
(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term
(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent
(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true

Two choices are clearly preferred. Please explain one over the other.
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 12
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 12:39
B.

abiguous use of the key term "contact".
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 402
Location: Las Vegas
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 22:41
A?
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Posts: 102
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2005, 23:41
A for me too
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 178
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 04:00
one more vote for A.

Krishna
VP
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1115
Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 07:02
A too but no easy answers on this one...
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 483
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 07:22
IMO it is D,

Both pretzel and caramel causes cavities on contact, the more time pretzel is in contact with teeth the more cavities it can cause, caramel dissolves faster but the effect of caramel ccompared to pretzedl could be serious on short contact and will be even more serious with longer contact...
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 331
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 08:22
D.

GA
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1713
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 375 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 08:29
IMO A.
_________________

hey ya......

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 86
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2005, 08:33
Choice A for me b/c from 2nd sentence "greater likelihood" implies coorelation and not direct/cause effect relationship. Then rest of sentence carries this coorelation from pretzel to caramels.
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1200 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2010, 14:21
OA is A, but i dont understand why.
Could anybody explain?
Thanks.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 25 May 2010
Posts: 136
Followers: 134

Kudos [?]: 750 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2010, 05:21
eastcoaster9 wrote:
Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.

The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well

(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term

(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent

(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon

(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true

Two choices are clearly preferred. Please explain one over the other.

Hi Guys,

Let me know if this helps... The wording is of course very tricky and requires constant interpretation. But the important thing to take note of is that this a an argument by analogy. The conclusion that a caramel is less likely to lead to a cavity is based on the assumption that duration of contact is the only factor in developing a cavity, as is the case with the pretzel.

In D, we need to 'translate' to see that this doesn't make sense:

the cause: duration of contact
the effect: developing a cavity

In no way is the duration of contact mistaken for developing a cavity.

If this helped, kindly give Kudos!
_________________

Sarai
Email me at saraiyaseen@gmail.com

If this helped, kindly give Kudos!

Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 81
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2010, 06:01
Thanks
_________________

Yogesh Agarwal
yogeshagarwala@gmail.com

CONSIDER AWARDING KUDOS IF MY POST HELPS !!!

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1200 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2010, 07:43
SaraiGMAXonline wrote:
eastcoaster9 wrote:
Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel remains in contact with the teeth when it is being eaten, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result. What is true of pretzels in this regard is also true of caramels. Therefore, since caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, eating a caramel is less likely to result in a cavity than eating a pretzel is.

The reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well

(B) relies on the ambiguous use of a key term

(C) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective classes that they are each intended to represent

(D) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon

(E) is based on premises that cannot all be true

Two choices are clearly preferred. Please explain one over the other.

Hi Guys,

Let me know if this helps... The wording is of course very tricky and requires constant interpretation. But the important thing to take note of is that this a an argument by analogy. The conclusion that a caramel is less likely to lead to a cavity is based on the assumption that duration of contact is the only factor in developing a cavity, as is the case with the pretzel.

In D, we need to 'translate' to see that this doesn't make sense:

the cause: duration of contact
the effect: developing a cavity

In no way is the duration of contact mistaken for developing a cavity.

If this helped, kindly give Kudos!

i dont see your point, sorry
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1511
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 630 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2010, 11:56
cause ==> duration of contact with teeth
effect ==> greater cavity

Author is saying because caramel dissolves in mouth faster than pretzel, caramel will not stay for a longer duration in mouth and hence will not cause greater cavity.

option (D) says the reasoning is wrong because it mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon (duration of contact with teeth) for the effect of that phenomenon (greater cavity) but that is not what the argument is saying or doing.

Instead the arugment says that because pretzel stays in the mouth for a longer duration it causes greater cavity and because caramel will stay in the mouth for less time it will cause less cavity (treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well) .
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2010
Posts: 136
Followers: 134

Kudos [?]: 750 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2010, 01:26
Hi noboru,

seekmba did a good job explaining-- is the issue clearer now or still confusing to you?

-Sarai
_________________

Sarai
Email me at saraiyaseen@gmail.com

If this helped, kindly give Kudos!

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1537
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 1200 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2010, 06:45
The thing is that OA is A, not D.
Aside from that, for me the effect is not greater cavity, but greater probability.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 193
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2010, 08:03
want to know the source of this CR!
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 79
Schools: IIM
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 11

Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2013, 03:44
I still could not understand why A is the OA.

Also no option is looking good to answer. Experts, pl provide explanation.

What is the source of the ques
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1132
Location: United States
Followers: 278

Kudos [?]: 3114 [9] , given: 123

Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2013, 15:54
9
KUDOS
ranjeet75 wrote:
I still could not understand why A is the OA.

Also no option is looking good to answer. Experts, pl provide explanation.

What is the source of the ques

Because I see there's no clear answer for this question, so I want share my thought (I'm sorry I'm not CR expert). Hope it will help.

GENERAL METHOD:

This question is Flaw in the Reasoning question that is considered the most difficult question in GMAT. Flaw questions appear infrequently in GMAT. If you see this kind of question, that would be a signal you are doing very well on the GMAT.

The technique used in Flaw question is Prephrasing and Fact test. Keep in mind that answers provide "new information" always be considered wrong.

APPLY:

Now, I will prephrase the stimulus as follows:

Why eating Pretzel makes cavity? Because Pretzel contacts with teeth. There must be a correlation between Pretzel and teeth. KEY
Why eating Caramel makes cavity? Because Caramel contacts with teeth. There must be a correlation between Caramel and teeth. KEY
If No, there's no cavity
The longer the correlations remains, the greater the likelihood that a cavity will result.

Author concludes: the correlation between Caramel & teeth lasts shorter than that between Pretzel and teeth >>>> the less likelihood that a cavity will result.

I bet you see THE GAP. The correlation between Caramel & teeth is DIFFERENT from the correlation between Pretzel & teeth. We cannot say "this is true for X also true for Y". This is wrong assumption.

What A says: "treats a correlation that holds within individual categories as thereby holding across categories as well". KEY WORD: "holds within & holding across"

It means: Author treats a correlation between Caramel & teeth and a correlation between Pretzel & teeth the same, and thereby makes a conclusion.

A clearly shows the flaw in author's reasoning.

Takeaway:
Flaw questions appear infrequently in GMAT. If you see this kind of question, that would be a signal you are doing very well on the GMAT.
The technique used in Flaw question is Prephrasing & Fact Test.

Hope my post helps you a little bit.

Regards.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that   [#permalink] 09 Apr 2013, 15:54

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
23 Meat from chickens contaminated with salmonella bacteria can cause ser 9 21 May 2017, 00:22
221 Alternate Cause - A weakener or not 53 23 Dec 2016, 23:03
16 Pretzel Vendor:tough cookie! 11 19 Jul 2016, 02:15
8 Since pollution-causing human activities can cause an 26 25 Feb 2016, 08:42
20 Before lead poisoning starts to cause serious damage, it can 14 17 Jan 2017, 08:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by