GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Oct 2019, 14:53

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

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 89
Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 10 Oct 2018, 03:41
3
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (01:48) correct 56% (01:57) wrong based on 164 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

Originally posted by eastcoaster9 on 25 Sep 2005, 12:14.
Last edited by Bunuel on 10 Oct 2018, 03:41, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 988
Location: United States
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2013, 15:54
10
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.
General Discussion
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 803
Re: CR:Pretzels  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2006, 19:59
3
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

Please explain your reasoning .......


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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 124
Re: CR:Pretzels  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2006, 04:34
1
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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 May 2010
Posts: 125
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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! :wink:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 892
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 50
Schools: IIM
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5924
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2018, 03:42
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel   [#permalink] 10 Oct 2018, 03:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Pretzels can cause cavities. Interestingly, the longer that a pretzel

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





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