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

It is currently 20 Apr 2019, 21:26

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

Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought

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

Hide Tags

 
Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1354
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User
Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 09:21
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (02:16) correct 60% (02:15) wrong based on 137 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought to be opposites. Congeniality, hospitality, openness, politeness, and warmth are often assumed to preclude aggressions and mayhem. What is frequently missed, however, is how often these two polar opposite seem to go together. The paradox of politeness is that violence and friendliness are not opposing forces, rather, in many cultures, these two forces work together and reinforce each other, creating societies where what is on the surface is vastly different from what is occurring underneath.

Which of the following can be properly inferred about the Sociologist’s point of view from his argument above?

A. Friendliness, congeniality, and politeness cannot exist in a society without some form of violence.

B. Violence, or threat of violence, eventually forms a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

C. It is not impossible, without some form of violence, to have a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

D. If it were not for violence, certain friendly, congenial, polite societies today may not have been so.

E. The societies struggling for friendliness, congeniality, and politeness must adopt violence or threat of violence in reaching their goal of bonhomie.

Source: Experts Global

_________________
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 34
Re: Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 10:16
IMO: A.
Because the relationship between violence and friendship spelled out in A is in line with the Sociologist's view described in the paragraph, which is 'co-existence'.

B is wrong because the relationship is causal: Violence caused friendliness;
C is wrong because the relationship is irrelevant. Friendliness can exist without violence;
D is wrong because the relationship is causal: friendliness is for violence;
E is wrong because the paragraph didn't suggest to adopt violence.


Sent from my iPad using GMAT Club Forum
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 31 Mar 2017
Posts: 38
GMAT 1: 710 Q45 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
GMAT 3: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.73
Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 11:22
broall wrote:
Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought to be opposites. Congeniality, hospitality, openness, politeness, and warmth are often assumed to preclude aggressions and mayhem. What is frequently missed, however, is how often these two polar opposite seem to go together. The paradox of politeness is that violence and friendliness are not opposing forces, rather, in many cultures, these two forces work together and reinforce each other, creating societies where what is on the surface is vastly different from what is occurring underneath.

Which of the following can be properly inferred about the Sociologist’s point of view from his argument above?

A. Friendliness, congeniality, and politeness cannot exist in a society without some form of violence.

B. Violence, or threat of violence, eventually forms a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

C. It is not impossible, without some form of violence, to have a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

D. If it were not for violence, certain friendly, congenial, polite societies today may not have been so.

E. The societies struggling for friendliness, congeniality, and politeness must adopt violence or threat of violence in reaching their goal of bonhomie.

Source: Experts Global


Interesting question. In my opinion, the answer is D
Remember, this is an inference question. Therefore, what we read is the only information that can be used to find the answers

A. This is tempting. Note that the prompt says "in many cultures, these two forces work together", but the prompt does not say that this occurs in ALL cultures. Therefore, we cannot make the assumption that violence and friendliness ALWAYS go together.
B. Irrelvant. The prompt does not say that violence CAUSES societies where friendliness is the norm, but just that both violence and friendliness exists in socieities
C. Another temping answer. Wrong because of the same reasoning as A
D. CORRECT. Again, the prompt notes that "The paradox of politeness is that.....in many cultures, these two forces work together....creating societies". Therefore, without the two forces of violence and friendliness, some polite societies today may not have been so
E. Irrelevant. What is this "bonhomie goal" in the answer. I have no idea
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2017, 12:35
Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought to be opposites. Congeniality, hospitality, openness, politeness, and warmth are often assumed to preclude aggressions and mayhem. What is frequently missed, however, is how often these two polar opposite seem to go together. The paradox of politeness is that violence and friendliness are not opposing forces, rather, in many cultures, these two forces work together and reinforce each other, creating societies where what is on the surface is vastly different from what is occurring underneath.

Which of the following can be properly inferred about the Sociologist’s point of view from his argument above?

A. Friendliness, congeniality, and politeness cannot exist in a society without some form of violence. -"cannot" is an extreme word.

B. Violence, or threat of violence, eventually forms a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm. -Only "a few" societies were formed because of the co-existence of violence and friendliness. This option makes violence a necessary condition for the establishment of societies.

C. It is not impossible, without some form of violence, to have a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm. -The argument is about those societies that have co-existence of violence and friendliness.

D. If it were not for violence, certain friendly, congenial, polite societies today may not have been so. -Correct. The argument introduces a paradox stating that in some cultures, if it weren't for violence then some societies wouldn't have existed.

E. The societies struggling for friendliness, congeniality, and politeness must adopt violence or threat of violence in reaching their goal of bonhomie. -"must" is an extreme word.
_________________
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 624
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Re: Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2017, 09:52
broall wrote:
Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought to be opposites. Congeniality, hospitality, openness, politeness, and warmth are often assumed to preclude aggressions and mayhem. What is frequently missed, however, is how often these two polar opposite seem to go together. The paradox of politeness is that violence and friendliness are not opposing forces, rather, in many cultures, these two forces work together and reinforce each other, creating societies where what is on the surface is vastly different from what is occurring underneath.

Which of the following can be properly inferred about the Sociologist’s point of view from his argument above?

A. Friendliness, congeniality, and politeness cannot exist in a society without some form of violence.

B. Violence, or threat of violence, eventually forms a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

C. It is not impossible, without some form of violence, to have a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

D. If it were not for violence, certain friendly, congenial, polite societies today may not have been so.

E. The societies struggling for friendliness, congeniality, and politeness must adopt violence or threat of violence in reaching their goal of bonhomie.

Source: Experts Global


A- This is extreme , prompt says many cultures have both not all...
B-again too extreme
C-again extreme, prompt says many cultures have both not all, we don't know the possibility that both exist in a society, or one is dependent on other...
D-- ok keep it
E--Nothing about this in prompt .
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9125
Location: Pune, India
Re: Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Apr 2019, 02:51
1
broall wrote:
Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought to be opposites. Congeniality, hospitality, openness, politeness, and warmth are often assumed to preclude aggressions and mayhem. What is frequently missed, however, is how often these two polar opposite seem to go together. The paradox of politeness is that violence and friendliness are not opposing forces, rather, in many cultures, these two forces work together and reinforce each other, creating societies where what is on the surface is vastly different from what is occurring underneath.

Which of the following can be properly inferred about the Sociologist’s point of view from his argument above?

A. Friendliness, congeniality, and politeness cannot exist in a society without some form of violence.

B. Violence, or threat of violence, eventually forms a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

C. It is not impossible, without some form of violence, to have a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.

D. If it were not for violence, certain friendly, congenial, polite societies today may not have been so.

E. The societies struggling for friendliness, congeniality, and politeness must adopt violence or threat of violence in reaching their goal of bonhomie.

Source: Experts Global


Note that the entire argument talks about how violence and friendliness are though to be opposites but they OFTEN go together. In MANY cultures, they reinforce each other.

Which of the following can be inferred?

A. Friendliness, congeniality, and politeness cannot exist in a society without some form of violence.
"cannot co-exist" - we cannot infer this. the argument says "often" and "many". That doesn't mean impossible.

B. Violence, or threat of violence, eventually forms a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.
Not given in the argument. The argument says they reinforce each other.

C. It is not impossible, without some form of violence, to have a society where friendliness, congeniality, and politeness are the norm.
Again, we don't know. Is it possible to have a friendly society without some form of violence? We don't know. All we know is that in MANY societies, violence and friendliness reinforce each other. Our data is only about MANY. It could be ALL, it may not be all. Data is not sufficient to establish this.

D. If it were not for violence, certain friendly, congenial, polite societies today may not have been so.
Correct. This says - "CERTAIN friendly societies may not have been so had it not been for violence". This is what the argument says.

E. The societies struggling for friendliness, congeniality, and politeness must adopt violence or threat of violence in reaching their goal of bonhomie.
Not correct. Is it a MUST to adopt violence? Not known.

Answer (D)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought   [#permalink] 05 Apr 2019, 02:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Sociologist: Violence and friendliness are usually thought

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.