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 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.
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
05 Oct 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
83% (01:36) correct
17%
(01:44)
wrong
based on 190
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Sickles found at one archaeological site had scratched blades, but those found at a second site did not. Since sickle blades always become scratched whenever they are used to harvest grain, this evidence shows that the sickles found at the first site were used to harvest grain, but the sickles found at the second site were not.
Which one of the following, if shown to be a realistic possibility, would undermine the argument?
(A) Some sickles that have not yet been found at the first site do not have scratched blades.
(B) The scratches on the blades of the sickles found at the first site resulted from something other than harvesting grain.
(C) Sickles at both sites had ritual uses whether or not those sickles were used to harvest grain.
(D) At the second site tools other than sickles were used to harvest grain.
(E) The sickles found at the first site were made by the same people who made the sickles found at the second site.
Which one of the following, if shown to be a realistic possibility, would undermine the argument?
(A) Some sickles that have not yet been found at the first site do not have scratched blades.
(B) The scratches on the blades of the sickles found at the first site resulted from something other than harvesting grain.
(C) Sickles at both sites had ritual uses whether or not those sickles were used to harvest grain.
(D) At the second site tools other than sickles were used to harvest grain.
(E) The sickles found at the first site were made by the same people who made the sickles found at the second site.
06 Oct 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Classic pattern of flawed reasoning here. Basically, the flaw here is, “Getting eaten by a shark causes death, therefore anybody who is dead must have been eaten by a shark.” Note that only one part of the argument’s conclusion is flawed. If sickles always get scratched when used to harvest grain, then the sickles at the second site, which were unscratched, were definitely not used to harvest grain. (If you’re not dead, then you were definitely not eaten by a shark.) But the first part of the conclusion (the scratched sickles were used to harvest grain) is fundamentally flawed because there might be a lot of other ways that sickles can get scratched. For example, when smiting your enemies by chopping off their heads or otherwise dismembering them, you might scratch your sickle.
Having identified the argument’s major weakness, it shouldn’t be heavy sledding to find an answer that would “undermine” (i.e. weaken) the argument. Basically, anything like, “There are a lot of other ways to scratch a sickle besides harvesting grain with it,” would be a terrific answer. If the answer involves any smiting, that will just be a bonus.
A) Huh? This is a truly bizarre answer. If the sickles “have not yet been found” then how the hell would we know they don’t have scratched blades? Really weird —this answer can’t even logically support its own weight. And even if it did, it wouldn’t point out that there are other ways to scratch a sickle, which is what we’re looking for here.
B) Boom. This is exactly what we are looking for. If this is true, then the argument’s conclusion that “the sickles found at the first site were used to harvest grain” is destroyed. This is almost guaranteed to be our answer.
C) Who gives a **** whether or not the sickles had ritual uses? A sickle could have ritual uses and still be used, or not used, to harvest grain. This answer is simply irrelevant. It’s like saying, “The sickles were stored in the barn when not in use.” Who cares?
D) Also irrelevant. We don’t care if they found a John Deere harvester that had traveled backward in time to harvest the grain at the second site—they still might have, or might not have, also used sickles to harvest grain at that site. This answer doesn’t change the logic of the argument at all.
E) The identity of the sickle creator is simply not at issue here. If you chose this answer, you aren’t paying close enough attention to 1) the argument or 2) what you’ve been asked to do. The conclusion is, “Sickles at the first site were used to harvest grain, and sickles at the second site were not.” We needed to attack that conclusion, and only B does that.
So our answer is B.
General Discussion
05 Oct 2021, 05:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Sickles found at one archaeological site had scratched blades, but those found at a second site did not. Since sickle blades always become scratched whenever they are used to harvest grain, this evidence shows that the sickles found at the first site were used to harvest grain, but the sickles found at the second site were not.
Which one of the following, if shown to be a realistic possibility, would undermine the argument?
(A) Some sickles that have not yet been found at the first site do not have scratched blades. Incorrect
may be true but cant weakens conclusion that blades were not scratched due to harvest grain
(B) The scratches on the blades of the sickles found at the first site resulted from something other than harvesting grain. Correct
directly attack conclusion
(C) Sickles at both sites had ritual uses whether or not those sickles were used to harvest grain. Incorrect
but conclusion can be true
(D) At the second site tools other than sickles were used to harvest grain. Incorrect
support conclusion
(E) The sickles found at the first site were made by the same people who made the sickles found at the second site. Incorrect
not needed to prove conclusion wrong
Which one of the following, if shown to be a realistic possibility, would undermine the argument?
(A) Some sickles that have not yet been found at the first site do not have scratched blades. Incorrect
may be true but cant weakens conclusion that blades were not scratched due to harvest grain
(B) The scratches on the blades of the sickles found at the first site resulted from something other than harvesting grain. Correct
directly attack conclusion
(C) Sickles at both sites had ritual uses whether or not those sickles were used to harvest grain. Incorrect
but conclusion can be true
(D) At the second site tools other than sickles were used to harvest grain. Incorrect
support conclusion
(E) The sickles found at the first site were made by the same people who made the sickles found at the second site. Incorrect
not needed to prove conclusion wrong
