Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was

Question

Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing to the university. After all, to have been publicly censured by the head of the university, as Edwards was, a professor must either have revealed information that embarrassed the university or have been guilty of gross professional negligence, and Edwards’s professional behavior is impeccable.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) According to company policy, employees who are either frequently absent without notice or who are habitually late receive an official warning. Since Ms. Jensen has never received such a warning, rumors that she is habitually late must be false.

(B) Any employee of Wilkins, Waddel, and Sloan, who discussed a client with a member of the press will either be fired or demoted. But since Wilkins employees never discuss their clients at all, no Wilkins employee will ever be demoted.

(C) Anyone promoted to supervisor must either have worked on the shop floor for three years or have an influential sponsor. Daniels, therefore, has an influential sponsor, since he was promoted to supervisor after a year on the shop floor.

(D) To earn a merit salary increase, an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products. No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.

(E) Anyone who is either awarded a letter of commendation or who receives a bonus must be recommended by a company officer. Simon has been recommended by a company officer and will receive a bonus, so he must not have been awarded a letter of commendation.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Vivek1707 · Answer

The pattern in the question is

If x (publically censured) ---> either A (revealed info) or B (gross prof negligence)

So if B dint happen then  A must  have happened  since X happened

A Incorrect: The pattern is If either x (Late) or y (absent) ---> z (off warning)
~z ----> ~x | Incorrect pattern

B Incorrect: This concludes that no employee will be demoted based on a company policy and an additional premise. It does not infer one alternative by eliminating the other

C Correct:  If x (Promoted) ------> either A (worked 3 years) or B (influential sponsors)

So if  A dint happen , then  B must have  happened  Exact match

D Incorrect: Doesnt mention that employees received merit increases, it leaves out one leg of the puzzle

E Incorrect: This commits the mistaken inference that receiving one qualifying condition rules out the other. The original argument never assumes the two alternatives are mutually exclusive.

Saks116 · Answer

IMO D

Event 'X" must have happened, Why ......(Reason).... thus two effects of it, either X or Y, than at last it gives the reason to neglect event Y(professional impeccable record).

(A) According to company policy, employees who are either frequently absent without notice or who are habitually late receive an official warning. Since Ms. Jensen has never received such a warning, rumors that she is habitually late must be false.

X & Y ---> rumour never happened doesn't imply Y must be false.

(B) Any employee of Wilkins, Waddel, and Sloan, who discussed a client with a member of the press will either be fired or demoted. But since Wilkins employees never discuss their clients at all, no Wilkins employee will ever be demoted.

Distorted pattern, 3 elements in discussion denying the fact on basis of one

(C) Anyone promoted to supervisor must either have worked on the shop floor for three years or have an influential sponsor. Daniels, therefore, has an influential sponsor, since he was promoted to supervisor after a year on the shop floor.

Therfore is problematic here, we aren't concluding here, just guessing 'must have'. Flaw

(D) To earn a merit salary increase, an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products. No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.

Scenario to happen - two causes X & Y, event Y didnt happened, so event X must have happened. Goes with the pattern.

(E) Anyone who is either awarded a letter of commendation or who receives a bonus must be recommended by a company officer. Simon has been recommended by a company officer and will receive a bonus, so he must not have been awarded a letter of commendation

this is actually happening in reverse, Flaw - must not have been

SkyBulb · Answer

got the answer but took more than 2.5 minutes for long sentences and breaking them into patterns. Is there a way to do it fast or is this common for native english speakers too?

AllisonBell · Answer

2.5 minutes is a pretty reasonable amount of time to solve this one. Remember, you’re aiming for about two minutes per question on      average      in Verbal, so it’s okay to go over on some questions, especially long and complex ones like this!

It’s also worth noting that this is not a frequently tested question type on the GMAT. In fact, it’s the first I’ve seen of its kind for this test. You’re more likely to see this type of question on the LSAT, so I honestly wouldn’t recommend investing much time studying this.

That said, there are some ways to make questions like this easier. My favorite is to:

Break the argument into its premise(s) and conclusion.  
  Identify key characteristics of the conclusion. Is it an either/or statement? A prediction? How strongly is it worded?  
  Eliminate answers that don’t match those key characteristics.  
  Repeat for each premise until you’ve only got one answer left.   
  Confirm that the remaining answer makes sense.

For this question, the conclusion is the first sentence,  Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing to the university.  It’s a definitive, positive statement of fact about a specific individual.

Skim the conclusions of the answer choices. Choice (B) is a prediction, not a statement of fact. Eliminate it.

Choices (A) and (E) are about something that did  not  happen, rather than something that did. It’s not impossible for this to work out as a logic match, but it’s not an obvious fit. Tentatively eliminate them.

Choice (D) is about TGX employees in general, not a a specific individual. It’s possible that this could match the logic, but it doesn’t seem like a strong fit. Tentatively eliminate.

That leaves choice (C), which ends up being a good match for the conclusion and the remainder of the logic.

Hope that helps! To get a better idea of what question types are most commonly tested, check out ManhattanPrep’s   GMAT Starter Kit & QBank  . We base the question types of what you see in the Official Guide and on official practice tests.

Best,

Bunuel · Answer

Veritas Prep Official Explanation:

Like Method of Reasoning questions, Mimic the Reasoning questions hinge on your understanding of argument structure and not on your ability to contribute to (or attack) the argument in question. It is therefore important to divorce the argument from subject matter and outline the direction of the argument in your own terms.

In this question, the argument essentially says (remember that order of presentation does not matter):

An action took place (he was censured). There are only two possible explanations for that action (either he revealed embarrassing information or he was professionally negligent). One of the two possible explanations is eliminated so the other one must be true (his professional behavior is impeccable so he must have revealed information.

In reading the answer choices, your only goal is to find that exact structure, regardless of the order of presentation and the subject matter.  Only answer choice C contains this structure:

An action took place (he was promoted). There are only two possible explanations for that action (either he has an influential sponsor or worked for more than three years). One of the two possible explanations is eliminated, so the other one must be true (he did not work for more than three years, so he must have an influential sponsor).

Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was