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.
Jul 1808:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Wondering how to craft compelling Career goals for your "Why MBA" essay? In this video, Gunjan Jhunjhunwala, seasoned MBA expert at The Red Pen, will walk you through how to: Define clear short-term and long-term goals, and more.
Jul 1410:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
GMAT Preparation Online - A limited time sale use code: EXPERTSGLOBAL10
Jul 1703:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- Jul 19
09:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Struggling to stay on time during Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) questions on the GMAT? In this video, GMAT expert Karishma Bansal (founder of ANA Prep) breaks down a 3-minute scanning strategy that can help you save critical time... - Jul 19
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment 
Jul 1911:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.- Jul 20
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT Verbal practice session to solve 10 tough questions from the Reading Comprehension section tested in the GMAT Verbal section. Take this quiz with other test takers in timed conditions. - Jul 22
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our second video about test accommodations for the GMAT exam, GMAT Ninja’s founder chats with Jason Northrup, Test Accommodations Senior manager at GMAC, about the three main qualifying condition categories...
22 Jan 2019, 23:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
34% (02:12) correct
66%
(02:02)
wrong
based on 1886
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
31 Jul 2020, 09:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Pre-thinking:
Susan points out that animal suffering is an unfortunate necessity in the pursuit to save human lives and cure human ailments. Melvin counters that, on the other hand, much of experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics. Susan replies that this too is justified on the same grounds since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values.
Straightaway we can notice a language shift in the argument. While initially Susan justifies animal suffering quoting the saving of human lives, later on she only puts forth "worthwhile human values". Therefore the connection between "worthwhile human values" and "saving human lives" is not made out clearly.
Let us examine the answer options.
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. She doesn't claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. Eliminate.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life. While this is true, it cannot be treated as a "logical" flaw, which is what the question asks us to locate. Eliminate.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses. Same as (B). Eliminate.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life. She does not make any such assumption in her argument. Eliminate.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives. Correct answer and consistent with our pre-thinking.
Hope this helps.
Susan points out that animal suffering is an unfortunate necessity in the pursuit to save human lives and cure human ailments. Melvin counters that, on the other hand, much of experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics. Susan replies that this too is justified on the same grounds since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values.
Straightaway we can notice a language shift in the argument. While initially Susan justifies animal suffering quoting the saving of human lives, later on she only puts forth "worthwhile human values". Therefore the connection between "worthwhile human values" and "saving human lives" is not made out clearly.
Let us examine the answer options.
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. She doesn't claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. Eliminate.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life. While this is true, it cannot be treated as a "logical" flaw, which is what the question asks us to locate. Eliminate.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses. Same as (B). Eliminate.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life. She does not make any such assumption in her argument. Eliminate.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives. Correct answer and consistent with our pre-thinking.
Hope this helps.
20 Dec 2024, 22:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
Responding to a pm:
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
She does not claim that "experimentation is justifiable ONLY IF it leads to cures for human ailments."
She says "it is justifiable IF it can lead to cures for human ailments."
So she gives a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. So this is not a part of her argument so it cannot be the flaw in her argument.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
Our values and ethos are our own. We cannot call one group's values flaws.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
She does use the word "value" in two different senses. The word "value" can be logically used in both senses. That is not a flaw.
"They don't value human life" and "These are worthwhile human values" and two different uses of the word and both are justified in the way they are used. There is nothing wrong or ambiguous here.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
She does not assume so in her argument. Nowhere does she imply that consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
Correct.
Her argument is that "Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life" and "These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support." When she says that "these experiments are justifiable on the same grounds," she needs to extend her argument to show how it ties up with "preservation of human life" aspect such as
Without cleanliness, humans are prone to life threatening diseases or something similar. She needed to tie the human values to "preservation of human life" for her argument to make sense.
Answer (E)
Here are some discussions on method questions:
https://youtu.be/uA5aXAZI1Z8
https://youtu.be/XCBp62o70Eg
https://youtu.be/wHlmmLzIx3Q
but yes its 
