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

 It is currently 20 May 2019, 17:41

### 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

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

# The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1106
Location: Taiwan
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 23 Jun 2013, 09:21
4
20
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (01:57) correct 51% (01:56) wrong based on 520 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

Which one of the following exhibits faulty reasoning most similar to the faulty reasoning in the argument above?

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.

Originally posted by chunjuwu on 10 Mar 2005, 19:36.
Last edited by Zarrolou on 23 Jun 2013, 09:21, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2052

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 00:11
5
1
Very interesting question. I love it.

chunjuwu wrote:
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

They may be tall compared to other tulips but not compared to other plants. Problem is the reference frames.

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.
Black is not relative.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.
No change of reference frame.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.
Oh yeah we got our answer right here. So similar. The gorillas may be small compared to other gorillas, but they may not be small compare to other primates.

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.
Again, no change of reference frame.

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.
No change of reference frame.

(C)
##### General Discussion
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1385

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2005, 21:07
1
A.

only plants => in the garden => tulips
but they were tall tulips.
So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

(A) only dogs => in the show => poodles
and they were all black poodles.
So all the dogs in the show were black.

(C) only gorillas => in the zoo => small gorillas.
All the primates in the zoo were gorillas.
Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 01:18
1
the only 'x' ---> 'y'
'y' ---> 'z'
Therefore the only 'x' --> 'zx'

'x': plants (collective noun)
'y': tulips (specific type)

We want somethign along the same line of reasoning

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black
poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.

the only 'x' ---> 'y'
'y' ---> 'z'
Therefore the only 'y' --> 'zy'

x: dogs, y: poodles, z: black

Same reasoning as the passage.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.

All 'x' --> 'z'
The only 'x' --> 'y'
So all 'x' --> 'zx'

x: buildings, y: office buildings + residential towers, z: tall

Different logic.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.

All 'x' --> 'y'
The only 'y' ---> 'zy'
So the only 'x' --> 'zx'

x: primates, y: gorillas, z: small

Different reasoning

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.

The only 'x' --> 'y'
'y' --> '!z'
'!x' --> 'z'

x: fruit, y: pears, z: ripe, !x: no fruits, !z: not ripe

Wrong reasoning

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.

All 'y' --> 'z'
All 'y' --> 'A'
So 'x' --> 'A'

x: everything y: grand pianos, z: large, A: heavy

Different reasoning again.

(A) it is
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1394
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 01:44
1
C) ! will explain if correct...
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 01:59
C cannot be right. Let's analyze this way:

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

We'll use x to denote plants, y to denote tulips, z to denote tall
So x would be a collective noun (plants)
y would be a specific type (tulips)
z would be a modifier (tall)

Here the passage says:

The only x --> y (only plants are tulips)
All y --> z (all the tulips are tall)
So the only x --> zx (only plants are tall plants)

Let's keep the same method for chioce C.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.

Here the collective noun would be primates, so we'll denote that with x
the specific type is gorillas, so we'll denote that with y
the modifier would be small, so we'll denote that with z

C says:

All x --> y (all primates are gorillas)
The only y --> zy (only gorillas were small gorialls)
So the only x -->zx (only primates were small primates)

See the difference in the logic between C and the original stem ? I'll place them side by side, choice (C) in red, original stem in blue

The only y --> zy The only x --> y
All x --> y All y --> z
So the only x -->zx So the only x --> zx
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1394
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 06:22
1
you are right, but what bothers me is that at the end it says "So the only plants in the garden were tall plants." that is not possible because tall plants are not only tulips. there are many other tall plants. in C) it says "Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates." it is the same mistake. there exist more small primates. in A) it says "So all the dogs in the show were black." that is right because all the dogs in the show are indeed black. so IMO C) and the argument make the same mistake.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 17:22
christoph wrote:
you are right, but what bothers me is that at the end it says "So the only plants in the garden were tall plants." that is not possible because tall plants are not only tulips. there are many other tall plants. in C) it says "Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates." it is the same mistake. there exist more small primates. in A) it says "So all the dogs in the show were black." that is right because all the dogs in the show are indeed black. so IMO C) and the argument make the same mistake.

The best way would be just to remove all the words, try to see a general pattern and denote them with variables like what I did here. There isn't a need to follow what I've exactly done, you could come up with you own. So the more we expose ourselves to different types of questions, the more weapons we have in our armoury to tackle whatever ETS can throw at us
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 417

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 17:24
ywilfred wrote:
the only 'x' ---> 'y'
'y' ---> 'z'
Therefore the only 'x' --> 'zx'

'x': plants (collective noun)
'y': tulips (specific type)

We want somethign along the same line of reasoning

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black
poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.

the only 'x' ---> 'y'
'y' ---> 'z'
Therefore the only 'y' --> 'zy'

x: dogs, y: poodles, z: black

Same reasoning as the passage.

well, if you go x --> y, y-->z, then x--->yz, then you sould say all dogs were "black poodles", but A only says black, will it still be right?
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1106
Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2005, 19:28
christoph wrote:
you are right, but what bothers me is that at the end it says "So the only plants in the garden were tall plants." that is not possible because tall plants are not only tulips. there are many other tall plants. in C) it says "Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates." it is the same mistake. there exist more small primates. in A) it says "So all the dogs in the show were black." that is right because all the dogs in the show are indeed black. so IMO C) and the argument make the same mistake.

Hello, christoph.

the argument said that in the garden tulips are the only plants, and because these tulips are tall;therefore, in the garden there are only tall plants. The argument just refers to the garden rather than other places.

I didn't see any flaws. Could you tell me where it is?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2005, 10:16
DLMD wrote:
ywilfred wrote:
the only 'x' ---> 'y'
'y' ---> 'z'
Therefore the only 'x' --> 'zx'

'x': plants (collective noun)
'y': tulips (specific type)

We want somethign along the same line of reasoning

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black
poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.

the only 'x' ---> 'y'
'y' ---> 'z'
Therefore the only 'y' --> 'zy'

x: dogs, y: poodles, z: black

Same reasoning as the passage.

well, if you go x --> y, y-->z, then x--->yz, then you sould say all dogs were "black poodles", but A only says black, will it still be right?

The passage makes a reasoning error (we're told that in the question) and we need something that follows this line of error. Only (A) does that.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2005, 10:17
chunjuwu wrote:
christoph wrote:
you are right, but what bothers me is that at the end it says "So the only plants in the garden were tall plants." that is not possible because tall plants are not only tulips. there are many other tall plants. in C) it says "Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates." it is the same mistake. there exist more small primates. in A) it says "So all the dogs in the show were black." that is right because all the dogs in the show are indeed black. so IMO C) and the argument make the same mistake.

Hello, christoph.

the argument said that in the garden tulips are the only plants, and because these tulips are tall;therefore, in the garden there are only tall plants. The argument just refers to the garden rather than other places.

I didn't see any flaws. Could you tell me where it is?

You can clearly see the flaw if try to apply what I explained in my previous post. The flaw is quite subtle and just reading the choices you might not see it. (well, at least I did not see the flaw, until i did what i did)
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 00:22
1
HongHu wrote:
Very interesting question. I love it.

chunjuwu wrote:
The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

They may be tall compared to other tulips but not compared to other plants. Problem is the reference frames.

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.
Black is not relative.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.
No change of reference frame.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.
Oh yeah we got our answer right here. So similar. The gorillas may be small compared to other gorillas, but they may not be small compare to other primates.

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.
Again, no change of reference frame.

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.
No change of reference frame.

(C)

From the reasoning I explained previously , A is the only one that had the same logic of errors. I need to go off to finish up some work, but i'll post later on with more details. Sorry
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2052

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 00:31
1
A does not have the same logic of error. In fact, A does not have a logic error. All dogs in the show are black poodles. So they are all black. There's nothing wrong with that. You have to first know what the logic error you are looking for is, before you go look for the errors.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1106
Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 02:14
1
Thanks, HongHu,ywilfred and others.l

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall tulips instead of tall plants.
Right?

The OA is indeed is C.

'Tall' is comparative not absolute.

I think that's the key point, right?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4639
Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 08:08
It does make a point. Great question by the way, this one goes right into my error log
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V37
The only plants in the garden were tulips  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 23 Jun 2013, 09:22
Can anyone help me with this one please.............

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

Which one of the following exhibits faulty reasoning most similar to the faulty reasoning in the argument above?

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.
(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.
(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.
(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.
(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.
_________________
If you like my post, consider giving me KUDOS

Originally posted by 780gmatpossible on 23 Jun 2013, 09:15.
Last edited by Zarrolou on 23 Jun 2013, 09:22, edited 1 time in total.
Merging similar topics.
Intern
Status: Winter is Coming!
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 40
Location: United States
Re: The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2013, 12:01
1
1
I got C

Here is my reason. A tall Tulip is not necessarily a tall plant (A tree >> Taller than Tulip), just like a small gorilla is not necessarily a small primate (small Gorilla>> than large monkey)
Intern
Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Posts: 22
Schools: Yale '16, AGSM '16
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Re: The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2013, 08:54
Late to the party here and this was a personalised question for me. Loved it.

The reasoning is that a tall tulip is not necessarily a tall plant. What is tall for a tulip is not necessarily tall for a plant.

I made a mistake as I struggled to see the flaw in the logic given in the premise but once you look a little deeper, it makes sense.

Good question.
Manager
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 78
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Re: The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2016, 21:53
Good Question and Options are tricky as well ..

Option A is sitting there on the top to be picked up on the first read itself (you get a feeling that this is it - the answer ), but clsoe inspection will tell that C uses the same reasoning (word by word)
_________________
_______
- Cheers

+1 kudos if you like
Re: The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were   [#permalink] 21 Mar 2016, 21:53

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by