Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 02:55 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 02:55 |
|
|
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 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
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 2108:00 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
21 Oct 2019, 09:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:35) correct
22%
(01:45)
wrong
based on 528
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Principle: If you sell an item that you know to be defective, telling the buyer that the item is sound, you thereby commit fraud.
Application: Wilton sold a used bicycle to Harris, knowing very little about its condition. Wilton told Harris that the bicycle was in good working condition, but Harris soon learned that the brakes were defective. Wilton was therefore guilty of fraud.
The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
(A) the application fails to establish whether Wilton was given the opportunity to repair the brakes
(B) the application fails to indicate how much money Wilton received for the bicycle
(C) the application uses the word “defective” in a sense that is crucially different from how it is used in the statement of the principle
(D) Harris might not have believed Wilton’s statement about the bicycle’s condition
(E) asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false
Application: Wilton sold a used bicycle to Harris, knowing very little about its condition. Wilton told Harris that the bicycle was in good working condition, but Harris soon learned that the brakes were defective. Wilton was therefore guilty of fraud.
The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
(A) the application fails to establish whether Wilton was given the opportunity to repair the brakes
(B) the application fails to indicate how much money Wilton received for the bicycle
(C) the application uses the word “defective” in a sense that is crucially different from how it is used in the statement of the principle
(D) Harris might not have believed Wilton’s statement about the bicycle’s condition
(E) asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false
rvgmat12
Joined: 19 Oct 2014
Last visit: 27 Mar 2026
Posts: 350
Given Kudos: 189
Location: United Arab Emirates
Schools: Wharton '23 Booth '23 INSEAD Jan'21 Intake
Products:
13 Mar 2022, 05:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
From Powerscore:
Flaw in the Reasoning—PR,SN. The correct answer choice is (E)
The principle in this stimulus is conditional. If you knowingly sells a defective product to a buyer while telling the buyer that the product is sound, then you have committed fraud. We can diagram this relationship as follows:
Sufficient ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Necessary
Knowingly sell a defective product
..... + ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... :arrow: ..... Commit fraud
Tell the buyer that the item is sound
In the application, Wilton sold a defective bike to Harris, and told him the bike was in good working order. The application concludes that Wilton was guilty of fraud. Immediately, we should notice that the application was missing a portion of the sufficient condition. The application specifically stated that Wilton knew very little about the condition of the bicycle, not that he knowingly sold a defective product. Since the application was missing a portion of the sufficient condition, the necessary condition does not necessarily follow. Going into the answer choices, we know we are looking for something that describes this conditional error.
Answer choice (A): The principle states that if Wilton had knowingly sold the defective product as sound, he would have been guilty of fraud. The nature of a conditional relationship indicates that if the sufficient condition occurs, the necessary condition must also occur. The conditional relationship as described in the principle does not leave room for the seller to attempt to repair the defect. Since this answer choice does not directly relate to the principle, it cannot be the correct flaw.
Answer choice (B): Similar to answer choice (A), this answer choice describes a consideration outside of the conditional relationship. As long as the bike was “sold” the exact sale price is irrelevant.
Answer choice (C): Errors in use of a term occur when an author (or two speakers) uses a key term in significantly different ways. In this stimulus, there is only one meaning of the word defective—to be somehow faulty, or not work in the way described. There is no alternate or different meaning.
Answer choice (D): The conditional relationship concerns the knowledge of the seller, not the buyer. It is the seller’s mental status that contributes to the fraud. Even if the buyer had knowledge of the fraud, it would not change the result of the seller’s actions.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. One key component of the sufficient condition is the idea of knowingly selling a defective item. In the application, Wilton lacks knowledge of the condition of the bike. Selling a defective bike as functional if one lacks justification for thinking it is in good working order is not the same as knowingly selling a defective bike.
Flaw in the Reasoning—PR,SN. The correct answer choice is (E)
The principle in this stimulus is conditional. If you knowingly sells a defective product to a buyer while telling the buyer that the product is sound, then you have committed fraud. We can diagram this relationship as follows:
Sufficient ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Necessary
Knowingly sell a defective product
..... + ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... :arrow: ..... Commit fraud
Tell the buyer that the item is sound
In the application, Wilton sold a defective bike to Harris, and told him the bike was in good working order. The application concludes that Wilton was guilty of fraud. Immediately, we should notice that the application was missing a portion of the sufficient condition. The application specifically stated that Wilton knew very little about the condition of the bicycle, not that he knowingly sold a defective product. Since the application was missing a portion of the sufficient condition, the necessary condition does not necessarily follow. Going into the answer choices, we know we are looking for something that describes this conditional error.
Answer choice (A): The principle states that if Wilton had knowingly sold the defective product as sound, he would have been guilty of fraud. The nature of a conditional relationship indicates that if the sufficient condition occurs, the necessary condition must also occur. The conditional relationship as described in the principle does not leave room for the seller to attempt to repair the defect. Since this answer choice does not directly relate to the principle, it cannot be the correct flaw.
Answer choice (B): Similar to answer choice (A), this answer choice describes a consideration outside of the conditional relationship. As long as the bike was “sold” the exact sale price is irrelevant.
Answer choice (C): Errors in use of a term occur when an author (or two speakers) uses a key term in significantly different ways. In this stimulus, there is only one meaning of the word defective—to be somehow faulty, or not work in the way described. There is no alternate or different meaning.
Answer choice (D): The conditional relationship concerns the knowledge of the seller, not the buyer. It is the seller’s mental status that contributes to the fraud. Even if the buyer had knowledge of the fraud, it would not change the result of the seller’s actions.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. One key component of the sufficient condition is the idea of knowingly selling a defective item. In the application, Wilton lacks knowledge of the condition of the bike. Selling a defective bike as functional if one lacks justification for thinking it is in good working order is not the same as knowingly selling a defective bike.
26 Mar 2022, 00:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Principle: If you sell an item that you know to be defective, telling the buyer that the item is sound, you thereby commit fraud.
Application: Wilton sold a used bicycle to Harris, knowing very little about its condition. Wilton told Harris that the bicycle was in good working condition, but Harris soon learned that the brakes were defective. Wilton was therefore guilty of fraud.
The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
The argument clearly states that Wilton was not properly aware of bicycle's condition.
(A) the application fails to establish whether Wilton was given the opportunity to repair the brakes - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(B) the application fails to indicate how much money Wilton received for the bicycle - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(C) the application uses the word “defective” in a sense that is crucially different from how it is used in the statement of the principle - WRONG. Nothing such sort of is concluded. They both mean same.
(D) Harris might not have believed Wilton’s statement about the bicycle’s condition - WRONG. True in the sense if Harris surely didn't believe Wilton but fails if he doesn't.
(E) asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false - CORRECT. Had Wilton knowingly done it then he would have been at fault. But since he didn't know of defects, it might not be his fault. Both are different scenaios.
Answer E.
Application: Wilton sold a used bicycle to Harris, knowing very little about its condition. Wilton told Harris that the bicycle was in good working condition, but Harris soon learned that the brakes were defective. Wilton was therefore guilty of fraud.
The application of the principle is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
The argument clearly states that Wilton was not properly aware of bicycle's condition.
(A) the application fails to establish whether Wilton was given the opportunity to repair the brakes - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(B) the application fails to indicate how much money Wilton received for the bicycle - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(C) the application uses the word “defective” in a sense that is crucially different from how it is used in the statement of the principle - WRONG. Nothing such sort of is concluded. They both mean same.
(D) Harris might not have believed Wilton’s statement about the bicycle’s condition - WRONG. True in the sense if Harris surely didn't believe Wilton but fails if he doesn't.
(E) asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false - CORRECT. Had Wilton knowingly done it then he would have been at fault. But since he didn't know of defects, it might not be his fault. Both are different scenaios.
Answer E.
