Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
01 Oct 2019, 10:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
65% (01:50) correct
35%
(02:02)
wrong
based on 392
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Professor: One cannot frame an accurate conception of one’s physical environment on the basis of a single momentary perception, since each such glimpse occurs from only one particular perspective. Similarly, any history book gives only a distorted view of the past, since it reflects the biases and prejudices of its author.
The professor’s argument proceeds by
(A) attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning
(B) developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false, absurd consequences would follow
(C) making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument
(D) arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another, closely related, characteristic
(E) arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to be unreliable under similar circumstances
The professor’s argument proceeds by
(A) attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning
(B) developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false, absurd consequences would follow
(C) making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument
(D) arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another, closely related, characteristic
(E) arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to be unreliable under similar circumstances
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 22 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,769
Given Kudos: 3,305
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
02 Oct 2019, 07:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Professor: One cannot frame an accurate conception of one’s physical environment on the basis of a single momentary perception, since each such glimpse occurs from only one particular perspective. Similarly, any history book gives only a distorted view of the past, since it reflects the biases and prejudices of its author.
Premise: Each such glimpse occurs from only one particular perspective
Conclusion: One cannot frame an accurate conception of one’s physical environment on the basis of a single momentary perception
Comparison: Similarly, any history book gives only a distorted view of the past, since it reflects the biases and prejudices of its author
For those who can't comprehend what the argument is trying to say, break it down as I have done above. This will make it easier to think about the question in a non-abstract way. We are being told something cannot be framed in a certain way, followed by some evidence why. We are then given an analogous comparison to support our premise and, subsequently, our conclusion. Let's see which answer choice does this the best.
The professor’s argument proceeds by
(A) attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning -- Oh, so close. A trap answer choice. Think about this for a moment. If I rewrite the sentence like this: attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another,presumably flawed, piece of reasoning. Are we trying to show that we are incorrect with the comparison? No! We are trying to support it. This twists the words around to sound good, but in reality it really goes against the argument. Out.
(B) developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false, absurd consequences would follow -- Where do we talk about these absurd consequences? We are told that one action occurring is wrong and given a situation to support it. This would correct in a case like "I think milk is good for you because cows are good. I also believe that if cows are considered bad, the world is going to end. Therefore, cows are good". This would be pretty close to absurd.
(C) making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument -- Perfect. We are given an analogous situation that is supportive of our claim that something is bad. This is word for word what we need, and it fits our diagram above very well!
(D) arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another, closely related, characteristic -- So this skips the comparison/analogy all together, although it tries to sound like it is comparing something. This is saying that, for example, cows are black and white therefore they all must have something else in common. Really? Breaking this down, we can see that this does not match anything above and just says that things are similar because they are similar. But our argument is arguing for something. This ignores almost the entire issue.
(E) arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to be unreliable under similar circumstances -- Kind of weird, and kind of like (C), except it is talking about human cognition, which is never touched upon in this question. And who knows if human cognition is used in both circumstances? We are just told about viewpoints, which may or may not use cognition. Be careful not to make assumptions about something being talked about. It is easy to say that we probably use human cognition for the above items, but we just don't know. In this case, we are comparing moments in time.
Premise: Each such glimpse occurs from only one particular perspective
Conclusion: One cannot frame an accurate conception of one’s physical environment on the basis of a single momentary perception
Comparison: Similarly, any history book gives only a distorted view of the past, since it reflects the biases and prejudices of its author
For those who can't comprehend what the argument is trying to say, break it down as I have done above. This will make it easier to think about the question in a non-abstract way. We are being told something cannot be framed in a certain way, followed by some evidence why. We are then given an analogous comparison to support our premise and, subsequently, our conclusion. Let's see which answer choice does this the best.
The professor’s argument proceeds by
(A) attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning -- Oh, so close. A trap answer choice. Think about this for a moment. If I rewrite the sentence like this: attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another,
(B) developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false, absurd consequences would follow -- Where do we talk about these absurd consequences? We are told that one action occurring is wrong and given a situation to support it. This would correct in a case like "I think milk is good for you because cows are good. I also believe that if cows are considered bad, the world is going to end. Therefore, cows are good". This would be pretty close to absurd.
(C) making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument -- Perfect. We are given an analogous situation that is supportive of our claim that something is bad. This is word for word what we need, and it fits our diagram above very well!
(D) arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another, closely related, characteristic -- So this skips the comparison/analogy all together, although it tries to sound like it is comparing something. This is saying that, for example, cows are black and white therefore they all must have something else in common. Really? Breaking this down, we can see that this does not match anything above and just says that things are similar because they are similar. But our argument is arguing for something. This ignores almost the entire issue.
(E) arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to be unreliable under similar circumstances -- Kind of weird, and kind of like (C), except it is talking about human cognition, which is never touched upon in this question. And who knows if human cognition is used in both circumstances? We are just told about viewpoints, which may or may not use cognition. Be careful not to make assumptions about something being talked about. It is easy to say that we probably use human cognition for the above items, but we just don't know. In this case, we are comparing moments in time.
mykrasovski
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Last visit: 17 Apr 2022
Posts: 340
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 253
Location: United States
Schools: Tuck '22 (M) Kellogg '22 (D)
WE:General Management (Other)
05 Oct 2019, 13:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
nightblade354, I eliminated all options but A and C. Even after thinking about them for a while, I do not follow your explanation of A... Even your re-written option A makes sense to me.
To compare means to draw an analogy, and the author does try to make the analogy between the reasoning in two arguments. I think the key to eliminating A is in the detail that the 2nd analogy about the book is not flawed (in fact, it is sound), while option A describes the 2nd argument as "presumably flawed". Option C correctly says that the 2nd argument is cogent.
Can you please help me with the above?
To compare means to draw an analogy, and the author does try to make the analogy between the reasoning in two arguments. I think the key to eliminating A is in the detail that the 2nd analogy about the book is not flawed (in fact, it is sound), while option A describes the 2nd argument as "presumably flawed". Option C correctly says that the 2nd argument is cogent.
Can you please help me with the above?
