It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 00:15

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 409

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2006, 18:20
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

58% (01:34) correct 43% (01:32) wrong based on 144 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

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 700

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2006, 18:39
Looks like C.

Will explain if it's right.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1011

Kudos [?]: 39 [3], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2006, 19:59
3
KUDOS
gmacvik 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

Tough question. I would bet on A.

Eating Pretzels can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. Eating Caramels also can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. These are correlations in individual categories.

Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, does not mean that caramels are less likely to cause cavities. Because, caramels might cause cavities in the short time they are in touch with teeth. Caramels may get dissolved fast, but they may be more dangerous per unit of time compared to pretzels.

Hence, the argument is right in relating in individual categories, but not right when comparing across categories (caramels and pretzels).
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Kudos [?]: 39 [3], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2006, 20:29
ak_idc wrote:
gmacvik 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

Tough question. I would bet on A.

Eating Pretzels can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. Eating Caramels also can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. These are correlations in individual categories.

Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, does not mean that caramels are less likely to cause cavities. Because, caramels might cause cavities in the short time they are in touch with teeth. Caramels may get dissolved fast, but they may be more dangerous per unit of time compared to pretzels.

Hence, the argument is right in relating in individual categories, but not right when comparing across categories (caramels and pretzels).

One more for A. Text book explanation!!! PLEASE tell me what you are using for CR prep. I really need some help for CR

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5201

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2006, 20:34
Between A and C here.

I'll take (A) for the usage of "indivual categories."

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 432

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2006, 04:18
A as explained above

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 21 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2006, 04:34
1
KUDOS
Yes the correlation that staying longer in contact with teeth increases the likelihood that a cavity will be created holds true for pretzel. the author uses the same correlation with caramel. Therefore the criticism of the above argument is best explained by A.
_________________

Neelabh Mahesh

Kudos [?]: 21 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 150

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

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2006, 05:06
Go for C

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

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 713

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

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2006, 11:27
ak_idc wrote:
gmacvik 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

Tough question. I would bet on A.

Eating Pretzels can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. Eating Caramels also can cause cavities, and longer touch with teeth means more chances of cavities. These are correlations in individual categories.

Caramels dissolve more quickly in the mouth than pretzels do, does not mean that caramels are less likely to cause cavities. Because, caramels might cause cavities in the short time they are in touch with teeth. Caramels may get dissolved fast, but they may be more dangerous per unit of time compared to pretzels.

Hence, the argument is right in relating in individual categories, but not right when comparing across categories (caramels and pretzels).

Wow)Nice explanation
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

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

Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 73

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

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2006, 11:38
ak_idc, Great explanation.

I would pick A. OA please?

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

Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2011, 11:20
I still don't quite get this question, can someone help me again with this one, thanks.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2011, 16:17
+1 for A, my reasoning echos gmacvik's

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Posts: 105

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2011, 16:21
tough one between A and C. I would vote for C.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 25

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2011, 00:53
I would opt for D.

The argument above is prone to serious criticism if the result as per the argument can be proved as the cause.. Do you agree?

in our case pritzels could be sticking on the teeth because of the cavities that are already there.. So a criticism like in the statement D would say pritxels are not causing cavities but cavities are causing pritzels to stick to the teeth.

Can somebody post the official answer

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 31

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2011, 11:31

Can anybody explain why C cannot be the answer???

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 224

Kudos [?]: 260 [0], given: 56

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

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2012, 22:18
I found nice discussion on this topic at pretzels-can-cause-cavities-interestingly-the-longer-that-20427.html
_________________

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, I kinda need some =)

Kudos [?]: 260 [0], given: 56

Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that   [#permalink] 15 Oct 2012, 22:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by