Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 11:31 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 11:31
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
805+ Level|   Logical Flaw|         
User avatar
owen1ee
User avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2020
Last visit: 22 Jul 2024
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 98
Location: China
Schools: CBS '26 Haas '26 Stern '26 Anderson '26 Sloan (MIT)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.2
Schools: CBS '26 Haas '26 Stern '26 Anderson '26 Sloan (MIT)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
Posts: 16
Kudos: 3
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the 16 Jun 2022, 01:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
suppose one chooses a set of beliefs. If he finds enough evidence to counter one of them, he will abandon it. This is the basic logic
If it is the only rule, then he will either keep or abandon beliefs when meeting evidence. So in the end, there will be few beliefs.

All those are wrong, because human need a lot of beliefs to survive. This is the reason why above it wrong. But no proof is provided. So A is correct.
User avatar
NA08
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 72
Location: India
Schools: Wharton '27
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.46
Schools: Wharton '27
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
Posts: 25
Kudos: 18
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the 17 Aug 2023, 11:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo I can't understand why option E is incorrect. We can have fewer correct beliefs but we can still have many beliefs. We haven't been told that we need many correct beliefs in order to survive. How's my understanding wrong?
Thank you!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,786
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,786
 [2]
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the 03 Dec 2023, 09:21
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NA08
Hi GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo I can't understand why option E is incorrect. We can have fewer correct beliefs but we can still have many beliefs. We haven't been told that we need many correct beliefs in order to survive. How's my understanding wrong?

Thank you!
Show more
As you point out, the author never says that we need many correct beliefs in order to survive. Rather, the author merely states that "we need many beliefs in order to survive." In other words, the author's argument doesn't hinge on whether our many beliefs are correct or not.

Let's now consider (E):

Quote:
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(E) takes for granted that the beliefs we need in order to have many beliefs must all be correct beliefs
Show more
Is this a flaw in the argument? Not really.

The author points out that the statistician's claim can only reduce our number of beliefs over time. As a result, whether our beliefs are true or not, we will eventually end up with fewer beliefs if we follow the statistician's suggestion. And according to the author, since we need many beliefs to survive, the statistician must be wrong.

Notice this argument doesn't hinge on whether our beliefs are true or not. It simply rests on the idea that the statistician's suggestion will reduce our total number of beliefs, true OR false, which will hinder our ability to survive.

So since (E) isn't taken for granted by the author, and since it doesn't point out a flaw in the argument, it's incorrect.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the 04 Jan 2024, 09:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argument -
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the overall correctness of the total set of one’s beliefs is: never change that set, except by rejecting a belief when given adequate evidence against it. - Claim of statisticians.
However, if this were the only rule one followed, then whenever one were presented with any kind of evidence, one would have to either reject some of one’s beliefs or else leave one’s beliefs unchanged. - Hypothetical conditional. Premise.
But then, over time, one could only have fewer and fewer beliefs. - Fact
Since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the statisticians’ claim must be mistaken. - supporting premise + conclusion

Option Elimination - Flaw in the argument

(A) presumes, without providing any justification, that the surest way of increasing the overall correctness of the total set of one’s beliefs must not hinder one’s ability to survive - ok. Because statisticians, while making a claim, did not consider the "ability to survive." It may or may not affect the "ability to survive." Their concern is the "overall correctness" of one's beliefs. They talk about saying, "Fruits are good for health. And if any fruit causes you harm, remove that fruit from your diet to not fall sick." In the same analogy, the author claims that fewer fruits means fewer vitamins and minerals, and one needs more vitamins and minerals, so the claim of "if any fruit causes you harm, remove that fruit out of your diet not to fall sick" is wrong. No, that's not wrong; when we made that claim, we did not rule out the possibility that fewer types of fruits can lead to fewer minerals and vitamins. But we are just dealing with an aspect of the fruits that do not suit your health; we won't take them. Likewise, the author assumes that "statisticians' claims" should not hinder one's survival ability and concludes based on his assumption. The "statisticians" just never touched on that aspect. They are talking about the "correctness of beliefs," and the author is talking about the "number of beliefs" - two different aspects. The correct criticism from the author would have been that Mr. Statistician's "correctness" doesn't increase on what you suggested because of so and so. So, rather than directly challenging what statisticians said, the author talks about other topics, and citing that topic says you are wrong. This way of argument is flawed. This is so common in our business dealings. Through this argument, the test makers test our ability to deal with such complex real-life flaws.

(B) neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians’ rule, one might also accept new beliefs when presented with some kinds of evidence - No. The statisticians claim clearly says, "Never change that set, except by rejecting a belief ." Adding a new belief is out of the question. So this is out of scope straight away. But yes, if we don't read well, and there can be a lot of reasons for that on exam day, then this is a great trap.

(C) overlooks the possibility that some large sets of beliefs are more correct overall than some small sets of beliefs - This is talking about, say, two sets of beliefs, or say, your belief and my belief. But that is not what this argument is concerned about. This argument is just concerned about one set of beliefs and the correctness of that. There is no aspect of comparison. This is out of scope.

(D) takes for granted that one should accept some beliefs related to survival even when given adequate evidence against them. No, oppose what the argument states.

(E) takes for granted that the beliefs we need in order to have many beliefs must all be correct beliefs - usage of familiar words to confuse the test taker. Distortion.
User avatar
SudhanshuC
User avatar
Joined: 11 Nov 2024
Last visit: 03 Dec 2024
Posts: 44
Own Kudos:
7
 [1]
Location: Canada
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q82 V77 DI80
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q82 V77 DI80
Posts: 44
Kudos: 7
 [1]
Some statisticians claim that the surest way to increase the 14 Nov 2024, 19:31
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Answer A

Conclusion - We need MANY beliefs to SURVIVE.

The argument is essentially that since the statisticians are advising you to never add beliefs, but only to remove beliefs when they are proven false, your belief set will only shrink as you gain information.

There are 2 problems with the argument:

1. The conclusion is that we need "many" beliefs.
But even with a shrinking belief set, one could still have "many" beliefs.
So the statisticians' advice doesn't necessarily contradict "many."

2. The advice is only about increasing the overall correctness of a belief set, not about survival (as stated in the conclusion).
So the claim about how to increase correctness could still be true, even if it means that our survival is threatened by it as claimed in the conclusion by the author.

Answer choice A describes this second flaw: correctness and survival can be exclusive of one another.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts