People who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage wou

Yes, it is. But if you read the principle outlined in the question, it says people should view advice with scepticism when it is not true that their "interests substantially coincide" with those of the advice-giver. The principle doesn't say anything about how to view advice when the advice-giver's and advice-receiver's interests do coincide. In the situation answer D describes, Ron and Sara share the same interest -- they co-authored the book, so they would both benefit if it were used for a course. So the principle in the stem doesn't apply to Ron and Sara's situation.

Hi experts Bunuel GMATinsight nightblade354 VeritasKarishma

The argument clearly states unless there is good reason to think that their interests substantially coincide with those of the advice giver
Had a clash between B and C. Chose 'C' because of the : "However, since Yvette also prefers those brownies to any other pastry, Mario would be wise to check with others before following her recommendation."
Clearly in Option C, the interests co-incide but it is wise to check with others if they really do. What is the flaw in my thought process? Please help.

Hi, let me try and break this down for you:

The standard logic is: X --> Y UNLESS Z. This translates into Z --> X --> Y

X: Receive Unsolicited Advice
Y: Should be Skeptical
Z: Unless there is good reason to think that their interests substantially coincide with those of the advice giver in the circumstance in question.

So what we want to see if something akin to: No coinciding of interests of your own --> Unsolicited advice --> Skeptical

(C) Mario wants to bring pastry to Yvette’s party, and when he consults her Yvette suggests that he bring his favorite chocolate fudge brownies from the local bakery. However, since Yvette also prefers those brownies to any other pastry, Mario would be wise to check with others before following her recommendation.

-- For this one, the issue is that we do AGREE with the person (the motive is the same), so the entire argument then falls apart because there is no reason to be skeptical, per our original argument.

\


Dont you think in B the interests coincide?

The salesperson benefits when the customer buys a more expensive refrigerator. There's no reason, from the information we have, to think that the customer benefits when she buys a more expensive refrigerator. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, depending on the quality of the fridge, but she clearly doesn't share the interest of the salesperson, who gets a commission on the sale, so their interests are not aligned.

People who receive unsolicited advice from someone whose advantage would be served if that advice is taken should regard the proffered advice with skepticism unless there is good reason to think that their interests substantially coincide with those of the advice giver in the circumstance in question.

This principle, if accepted, would justify which one of the following judgments?

The question stem is unique to me. I chose B but had apprehensions. One reason being that i thought it is asking some form conclusion that can be advanced based on the structure of passage. Two, the way the options are given, most importantly if someone(as i) doesn't understands them properly.

Two pillars of the passage are 'skepticism' and 'coincide'.

(A) After learning by chance that Harriet is looking for a secure investment for her retirement savings, Floyd writes to her recommending the R&M Company as an especially secure investment. But since Floyd is the sole owner of R&M, Harrier should reject his advice out of hand and invest the savings elsewhere. - WRONG. The BIG word was 'reject'. Why it says reject when passage only refers about being skeptical.

(B) While shopping for a refrigerator, Ramon is approached by a salesperson who, on the basis of her personal experience, warns him against the least expensive model. However, the salesperson’s commission increases with the price of the refrigerator sold, so Ramon should not reject the least expensive model on the salesperson’s advice alone. - CORRECT. Only this makes sense among them all. It is parallel in build-up to the passage's. Both pillars secured.

(C) Mario wants to bring pastry to Yvette’s party, and when he consults her Yvette suggests that he bring his favorite chocolate fudge brownies from the local bakery. However, since Yvette also prefers those brownies to any other pastry, Mario would be wise to check with others before following her recommendation. - WRONG. There's no skepticism aspect in this option.

(D) Sara overhears Ron talking about a course he will be teaching and interrupts to recommend a textbook for his course. However, even though Sara and Ron each wrote a chapter of’ this textbook, since the book’s editor is a personal friend of Sara’s, Ron should investigate further before deciding whether it is the best textbook for his course. - WRONG. This presents an opposite logic on the 'skepticism' pillar. Even though Ron and Sara's interests coincide, why Ron should investigate(being skeptical).

(E) Mel is buying fish for soup. Joel, who owns the fish market where Mel is a regular and valued customer, suggests a much less expensive fish than the fish Mel herself prefers. Since if Mel follows Joel’s advice, Joel will make less profit on the sale than he would have otherwise, Mel should follow his recommendation. - WRONG. Has an opposing logic on the 'coincide' pillar. Nonetheless, it made a wreck out of the passage.

Answer B.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.