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.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Jul 2020, 12:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:46) correct
30%
(02:03)
wrong
based on 378
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The parliamentarian has often stated that no crime that impacts only a few individual victims deserves capital punishment and, therefore, capital punishment should be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole. When gruesome crimes involving only one or two victims but generally viewed as deserving capital punishment are cited as possible counterexamples, the parliamentarian justifies his stance by saying that if those crimes deserve capital punishment, they cannot have impacted only a few individual victims.
The parliamentarian's reasoning contains which one of the following errors?
A It contains an unfounded acceptance of a popular opinion.
B It relies on the parliamentarian's authority on legal or sociological matters.
C It seeks to convince by emotion rather than logic.
D It attempts to substantiate a viewpoint by appeal to an unrelated contemplation.
E It assumes what it intends to substantiate.
The parliamentarian's reasoning contains which one of the following errors?
A It contains an unfounded acceptance of a popular opinion.
B It relies on the parliamentarian's authority on legal or sociological matters.
C It seeks to convince by emotion rather than logic.
D It attempts to substantiate a viewpoint by appeal to an unrelated contemplation.
E It assumes what it intends to substantiate.
08 Jul 2020, 23:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Source of Question: Manhattan Review (LSAT)
Official Explanation
Argument construction
The parliamentarian states that no crime that impacts only a few victims (for example, murdering only one or two people) deserves capital punishment. Therefore, on the basis of this statement, he concludes that the capital punishment can be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole.
Some people object to this conclusion and give as counterexamples such cases in which only one or two people may have been killed but which were so brutal or gruesome as to make the general population think that the murderer deserved to get capital punishment.
To this objection, the parliamentarian responds that if those cases really deserve capital punishment, then they must have hurt more than a few individual victims.
Flaw in the argument
Let's dissect the argument.
The parliament' principle:
The parliamentarian decides the applicability of capital punishment for a crime by looking at the number of victims impacted by the crime.
If a crime impacts only a few individual victims, then capital punishment should not be awarded.
The Parliamentarian's Conclusion/Assertion
Capital punishment should be awarded if and only if a crime impacts the survival or well-being of the whole society.
How does he support this conclusion? Simply by citing his above principle.
People's counterexample:
Gruesome crimes that impact only one or two individual victims but are generally considered to deserve capital punishment.
The parliamentarian's defense:
The counterexample doesn't ruffle the parliamentarian at all. Rather, he still uses his principle to respond to it.
He says that if the gruesome crimes that are offered as a counterexample deserve capital punishment, then they cannot have impacted only a few individuals. (Perhaps he would go down the road of showing how the families or neighborhoods of the victims were impacted too, or how those crimes destabilized the society as a whole and therefore merited capital punishment to preserve the well-being of the society etc.)
What is the flaw in the parliamentarian's reasoning?
He makes a conclusion based on nothing but his self-proclaimed stance treated as the absolute and incontrovertible truth. When that conclusion is challenged by counterexamples, he again responds by citing his stance, and suggests that if those counterexamples are true, then they must adhere to his stance.
Let's analyze each option one by one.
Answer choices explanation:
A: This is incorrect. While the parliamentarian does blindly accept his stance to be true ("unfounded acceptance"), the argument does not suggest that this stance is popular and is the generally held opinion of most people.
B: This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian exercised his authority/power to enforce his opinion.
C: This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian appealed emotionally to sell his opinion.
D: This is incorrect. The counter-argument advanced by the parliamentarian (in response to the counterexamples) is relevant to the argument.
E: This is correct. It is in line with the analysis done above. The parliamentarian's conclusion is rather a rephrase of his opinion.
Official Explanation
Argument construction
The parliamentarian states that no crime that impacts only a few victims (for example, murdering only one or two people) deserves capital punishment. Therefore, on the basis of this statement, he concludes that the capital punishment can be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole.
Some people object to this conclusion and give as counterexamples such cases in which only one or two people may have been killed but which were so brutal or gruesome as to make the general population think that the murderer deserved to get capital punishment.
To this objection, the parliamentarian responds that if those cases really deserve capital punishment, then they must have hurt more than a few individual victims.
Flaw in the argument
Let's dissect the argument.
The parliament' principle:
The parliamentarian decides the applicability of capital punishment for a crime by looking at the number of victims impacted by the crime.
If a crime impacts only a few individual victims, then capital punishment should not be awarded.
The Parliamentarian's Conclusion/Assertion
Capital punishment should be awarded if and only if a crime impacts the survival or well-being of the whole society.
How does he support this conclusion? Simply by citing his above principle.
People's counterexample:
Gruesome crimes that impact only one or two individual victims but are generally considered to deserve capital punishment.
The parliamentarian's defense:
The counterexample doesn't ruffle the parliamentarian at all. Rather, he still uses his principle to respond to it.
He says that if the gruesome crimes that are offered as a counterexample deserve capital punishment, then they cannot have impacted only a few individuals. (Perhaps he would go down the road of showing how the families or neighborhoods of the victims were impacted too, or how those crimes destabilized the society as a whole and therefore merited capital punishment to preserve the well-being of the society etc.)
What is the flaw in the parliamentarian's reasoning?
He makes a conclusion based on nothing but his self-proclaimed stance treated as the absolute and incontrovertible truth. When that conclusion is challenged by counterexamples, he again responds by citing his stance, and suggests that if those counterexamples are true, then they must adhere to his stance.
Let's analyze each option one by one.
Answer choices explanation:
A: This is incorrect. While the parliamentarian does blindly accept his stance to be true ("unfounded acceptance"), the argument does not suggest that this stance is popular and is the generally held opinion of most people.
B: This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian exercised his authority/power to enforce his opinion.
C: This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian appealed emotionally to sell his opinion.
D: This is incorrect. The counter-argument advanced by the parliamentarian (in response to the counterexamples) is relevant to the argument.
E: This is correct. It is in line with the analysis done above. The parliamentarian's conclusion is rather a rephrase of his opinion.
08 Jan 2026, 20:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
