The following argument is logically flawed. The author's goal was to c

Question

The following argument is logically flawed. The author's goal was to craft the argument so that the conclusion follows logically from Premises 1 and 2 and so that both premises are necessary to draw the conclusion.

Premise 1: Every respondent to our survey who  reported feeling satisfied  also reported being in a good mood.

Premise 2: Every respondent to our survey who  reported having a central goal  also  reported being in a good mood .

Conclusion: Therefore, assuming all of the reports were accurate and complete, every respondent to our survey who  felt satisfied  also  had a central goal .

Select for  Boldface A  and for  Boldface B  two of the boldface phrases in the argument such that Boldface A occurs earlier in the argument than Boldface B, and exchanging the positions of those two phrases in the argument would make it so the argument fulfills the author's goal. Make only two selections, one in each column.

ID: 700278

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

These are conditional Statements. Every/Whenever etc signal 'if' conditional statements.

Important: The author's goal was to craft the argument so that the conclusion follows logically from Premises 1 and 2 and so that both premises are necessary to draw the conclusion.
The argument as given is certainly flawed. How will it follow logically? (i.e. deductive logic) Identify that "conclusion follows logically" means that we should be able to deduce the conclusion.

Premises:
If A, then B.
If B, then C
Conclusion: Hence if A then C.

A, B, C are "satisfied," "goal" and "mood" in some order.

The "reported good mood" phrasing is available twice so make it 'B' in our if then conditional shown above.

If satisfied, then good mood.
If good mood, then central goal.
Conclusion: Hence if satisfied, then central goal.

Fits. So exchange "reported having a central goal " with "reported being in a good mood" (ANSWER)

Discussions on conditional statements:
https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8
https://youtu.be/BW8Ijrhjjq8

Video solution to this question:
https://youtu.be/5G7RYdtP-wQ

Iwillget770 · Answer

Hi chetan2u , Please vet my approach . https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=81593 Hence , We need to change Premise 2 Old : Every respondent to our survey who reported having a central goal also reported being in a good mood . New : Every respondent to our survey who reported being in a good mood also reported having a central goal . Therefore, BoldFace1 : reported being in a good mood BoldFace2 : reported having a central goal Regards GMAT-Club-Forum-jom9amva.png

chetan2u · Answer

You have homed on to the two possible boldfaces. However, two flaws
(1) You have inverted the bold faces in venn diagram. 
 Every respondent to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.
The outer circle will be 'being in good mood', so that any part in it will contain 'being in good mood'
(2) Next you have inverted the two options. look at the colred portion in the question stem
Select for Boldface A and for Boldface B two of the boldface phrases in the argument  such that Boldface A occurs earlier in the argument than Boldface B , and exchanging the positions of those two phrases in the argument would make it so the argument fulfills the author's goal.

Every respondent to our survey who   reported having a central goal   also   reported being in a good mood  .
....................................................................Boldface A................................................Boldface B..........

Iwillget770 · Answer

Hi  chetan2u ,

I am confused .

Please help me to interpret the data.
Lets take Premise 1 as an example

Premise 1 :  Every respondent to our survey  who reported feeling satisfied  also reported  being in a good mood .

In this case say 100 respondents reported being in a good mood. So are you saying that out of 100 ...say 50 respondents reported feeling satisfied.

ie

Being in a good mood is the main set and reported feeling satisfied is the subset ??

Regards

chetan2u · Answer

Yes exactly.

Take the opposite.

Premise 1:  Every respondent  to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.

In this case say 100 respondents reported feeling satisfied. So out of 100 ...say 50 respondents reported being in good mood.

What happens to 100-50 or 50 respondents who reported feeling satisfied but not being in good mood.
The coloured word  Every respondent  in premise is no more valid.

Sans8 · Answer

KarishmaB   chetan2u 
It took hell lot of effort in comprehending the qstn stem of this qstn, any advice in how to tackle such qstn? Pls give expert's advice to my solution how it can be made more efficient.

Once you understand the qstn stem you can solve the question pretty easily.

Qstn stem asks us to choose two bold faces which when inverted can fill up the gap and make the argument logical.

Premise 1 says: Everyone who is satisfied is in a good mood
Premise 2 says: Everyone who has a central goal is in a good mood
Conclusion is  everyone who is satisfied had a central goal .
Now,
This conclusion is only possible when people in a good mood are common in P1 and P2.
How?
Let's look at example:
Suppose 10 people are satisfied = 10 good mood
15 people have central goal = 15 good mood
If the number of good mood is 25 then conclusion cannot be logically derieved.

But if argument is something like:  Everyone who is satisfied is in a good mood and Everyone who is in a good mood has a central goal.

then we can logically conclude the author's conclusion.

chetan2u · Answer

Your understanding is perfectly fine.

Premise 1 says: Everyone who is satisfied is in a good mood
Premise 2 says: Everyone who has a central goal is in a good mood

The above basically talks of a larger circle 'good mood', and 'satisfied' & 'central goal' are two smaller circles within that circle of 'good mood'.
 There may be zero overlap to complete overlap in these two smaller circles.

Conclusion is  everyone who is satisfied had a central goal .
This conclusion now makes 'satisfied' circle part of 'central goal' circle. But as the colored portion says we do not know the overlap in the two smaller circle.

Anonymous · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATCoachBen   Bunuel   manasp35   chetan2u 
 1.  Is my reasoning below correct or is just a coincidence that I chose the right ones?
 2.  What strategy can we follow in this kind of questions to answer them effectively? The reasoning below it was during the reviewing of the questions, when I solved it, it took me about 3min.

SPM1234 · Answer

According to the language of the question, is there not the possibility that someone reported JUST being in a good mood?

chetan2u · Answer

Before any changes to the argument, we have people satisfied and people having central goal as part of the bigger set of people feeling good. It is possible that the bigger set consists of people who are neither satisfied nor have a central goal. However, we cannot say what is the overlap between these smaller set of people.

But the conclusion says that every satisfied person has a central goal. For this we flip boldfaces in the statement 2.

Now who are satisfied are part of set of people having good mood, which is a part of set of people who have a central goal, meaning satisfied people also have a central goal.

Posted from my mobile device

Nidhibatra · Answer

In this question we are making changes in 2 boldface statements in 2nd premise but is it anywhere stated that these updates have to be made in 2nd statement? Boldface could refer to premise 1 or conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

Gemmie · Answer

Premise 1: If satisfied --> good mood 
Premise 2: If central goal  --> good mood

==> Conclusion: satisfied --> central goal (Fallacy)

Need to exchange 'good mood' and 'central goal' in Premise 2:
good mood --> central goal

This would make: satisfied --> good mood --> central goal

A: central goal
B: good mood

mayankdgmat · Answer

If S, then GM If GM, then C Conclude to if S, then C. Here how to do it through ven diagram https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=82265 GMAT-Club-Forum-0fwsvaxr.png

kamali18ks · Answer

kaizen1999 · Answer

How does one understand which boldface the question is talking about? According to the question there are 5 instances of boldface in the question, which one do we target and how did we determine that?  chetan2u  /  KarishmaB

nguyenpham1309 · Answer

From my process, I think there are signals that we can actively eliminate possibilities before choosing which one is boldface A & B:
"in the argument such that Boldface A occurs earlier in the argument than Boldface B": Clearly, A must appear before B. We can eliminate the option combinating A-had a central goal & B-felt satisfied

Focus on two premises: Both said that "reported having a central goal" and "reported feeling satisfy" lead to "reported being in a good mood". Thus, exchange their position makes no senses to the final conclusion. -> One of the correct AC must be "reported being in a good mood". -> This phrase always occur after "reported having a central goal" and "reported feeling satisfy" -> potential option to be B.

What about the conclusion? I did try to exchange two boldfaces in the conclusion, but it is very similar to the situation between "reported having a central goal" and "reported feeling satisfy" above -> Now I used the logic flow between two premises to decide goal/satisfied should be boldface A

It's not the perfect process compared to others but that is how I try to eliminate and direct to the final answer.

manish8242 · Answer

I did not get what we need to do? What we have to replace? If it says replacing the phrase in Premise then there are 3 Boldfaces which one to replace?

Bunuel · Answer

The following argument is logically flawed. The author's goal was to craft the argument so that the conclusion follows logically from Premises 1 and 2 and so that both premises are necessary to draw the conclusion.

Premise 1: Every respondent to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.

Premise 2: Every respondent to our survey who reported having a central goal also reported being in a good mood.

Conclusion: Therefore, assuming all of the reports were accurate and complete, every respondent to our survey who felt satisfied also had a central goal.

Select for Boldface A and for Boldface B two of the boldface phrases in the argument such that Boldface A occurs earlier in the argument than Boldface B, and exchanging the positions of those two phrases in the argument would make it so the argument fulfills the author's goal. Make only two selections, one in each column.

We are asked to pick two of the five boldfaced phrases and swap them so that the conclusion follows logically from both premises and both premises are necessary.

We are given this argument:

Premise 1: Every respondent to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.
Premise 2: Every respondent to our survey who reported having a central goal also reported being in a good mood.
Conclusion: Therefore, assuming all of the reports were accurate and complete, every respondent to our survey who felt satisfied also had a central goal.

This argument is not correct. Both premises talk about respondents who reported being in a good mood, so each premise connects a different idea to the same group. In logical terms, Premise 1 says that the group who reported feeling satisfied (small circle 1) lies inside the group who reported being in a good mood (big circle). Premise 2 says that the group who reported having a central goal (small circle 2) also lies inside the same big circle of those who reported being in a good mood.

However, the conclusion says that every respondent who felt satisfied also had a central goal, which means that small circle 1 should lie inside small circle 2. Since both small circles are only inside the same larger circle and do not overlap necessarily, one is not inside the other. Therefore, the conclusion does not logically follow.

To fix this, we must connect satisfaction and goal through one continuous chain. That connection appears if we swap reported having a central goal and reported being in a good mood.

After the swap, the argument becomes:

Premise 1: Every respondent to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.
Premise 2: Every respondent to our survey who reported being in a good mood also reported having a central goal.
Conclusion: Therefore, assuming all of the reports were accurate and complete, every respondent to our survey who felt satisfied also had a central goal.

Now the logic works. The first premise places reported feeling satisfied (small circle) inside reported being in a good mood (middle circle). The second premise places reported being in a good mood (middle circle) inside reported having a central goal (big circle).

This creates a clear nesting of circles: small circle inside middle circle, and middle circle inside big circle. Together they show that the group of respondents who reported feeling satisfied is entirely inside the group who reported having a central goal.

With the assumption that all reports are accurate, this supports the conclusion that everyone who felt satisfied (small circle) also had a central goal (big circle). Both premises are necessary, because removing either one breaks the nesting and the conclusion no longer follows.

Show Spoiler

@manish8242

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-qo32ecpr.png [ 19.81 KiB | Viewed 720 times ]

The following argument is logically flawed. The author's goal was to c

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Boldface A	Boldface B
		reported feeling satisfied
		reported having a central goal
		reported being in a good mood
		felt satisfied
		had a central goal

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

The following argument is logically flawed. The author's goal was to c

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards