There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week

Question

There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week. However, every previous reshuffle that the Premier has made was preceded by meetings between the Premier and senior cabinet members. No such meetings have occurred or are planned. Therefore the rumors are most likely false.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a principle of reasoning employed by the argument?

(A) When a conclusion follows logically from a set of premises, the probability that the conclusion is true cannot be any less than the probability that the premises are all true.

(B) A hypothesis is undermined when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain if the hypothesis were true.

(C) It is possible for a hypothesis to be false even though it is supported by all the available data.

(D) Even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances, it is erroneous to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred.

(E) If two statements are known to be inconsistent with each other and if one of the statements is known to be false, it cannot be deduced from these known facts that the other statement is true

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

It is a tricky question and takes a few re-reads. At first, all options seemed wrong. The argument is pretty simple.

There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week. 
All previous reshuffles were preceded by meetings between the Premier and senior cabinet members. 
No such meetings have occurred or are planned.

Conclusion: The rumors are most likely false.

So the logic used is that if that is how it happened in the past, that is how it will happen in future too. We need something which says the same thing.

(A) When a conclusion follows logically from a set of premises, the probability that the conclusion is true cannot be any less than the probability that the premises are all true.

Incorrect. Our conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. Our premises needed another statement saying 'in future it will happen the way it happened in the past' for the conclusion to logically follow. So this cannot be the principle.

(B) A hypothesis is undermined when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain if the hypothesis were true.

The problem here is to identify what the hypothesis is. Note the first statement of the argument. The hypothesis is that "the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week". Now this all makes sense. The argument is undermining the hypothesis because the state of affairs (reshuffle) does not obtain that which it would be expected to obtain (meetings) if the hypothesis were true (if reshuffle had to happen). So this is the correct answer.

(C) It is possible for a hypothesis to be false even though it is supported by all the available data.

The hypothesis is not supported to available data.

(D) Even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances, it is  erroneous  to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred.

The argument assumes that it is  correct to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred. Hence the principle of the argument is opposite to what is stated here.

(E) If two statements are known to be inconsistent with each other and if one of the statements is known to be false, it cannot be deduced from these known facts that the other statement is true

We don't know two statements which are inconsistent with each other.

Answer (B)

prags1989 · Answer

Can someone help me to understand this ? I chose D

vaibhav1221 · Answer

Even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances, it is erroneous to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred. Consider the following analogy: Last year i sneezed during the passing of a cyclone, it is wrong to assume that i will sneeze only when a cyclone hits. The Prompt says There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week. However, every previous reshuffle that the Premier has made was preceded by meetings between the Premier and senior cabinet members. No such meetings have occurred or are planned. Therefore the rumors are most likely false. In essence this means that cabinet reshuffles when an unplanned meeting is held. Because the meeting is unplanned, it is unlikely that anyone except the people involved in the meeting would know anything about it. The first line indicates that a meeting will be held next week when the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet. But from the past knowledge, we know that cabinet is not reshuffled in a planned meeting. Therefore the rumours/rumors are FALSE. Hope this helps clarify your doubt.

Regards, V

rohitinbox · Answer

Line of argument of D actually refutes the claim made by the author that the rumours are most likely false albeit rumours could also be true.

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

gilltaurus · Answer

A, is the answer? 
Correctly establishing the line of reasoning employed in the argument

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

SonalSinha803 · Answer

(A) When a conclusion follows logically from a set of premises, the probability that the conclusion is true cannot be any less than the probability that the premises are all true. -the argument does not talk about any probability.

(B) A hypothesis is undermined when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain if the hypothesis were true. - thus explains the line of reasoning. Hold.

(C) It is possible for a hypothesis to be false even though it is supported by all the available data. - incorrect.

(D) Even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances, it is erroneous to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred. - actually opposite of the actual scenario.

(E) If two statements are known to be inconsistent with each other and if one of the statements is known to be false, it cannot be deduced from these known facts that the other statement is true - no inconsistency has been reflected in the premises of the argument.

Thus, B is the best.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

rohitinbox · Answer

A seems to be the best among all ...

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

AdityaHongunti · Answer

Method of reasoning is very much like BOLD FACE with respect to the approach.

In BOLD FACE we assign each sentences particular roles played by them in the argument. Same it is for the MOR.

There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week(Claim/statement). However, every previous reshuffle that the Premier has made was preceded by meetings between the Premier and senior cabinet members(fact). No such meetings have occurred or are planned(fact). Therefore the rumors are most likely false(conclusion).

Structure- Claim>> Facts against the claim >> Conclusion against the claim.

A) When a conclusion follows logically from a set of premises, the probability that the conclusion is true cannot be any less than the probability that the premises are all true. >> Not all the premises are true here. This option calls the claim(1st st.) a premise and hence does not take into account the change of direction in the argument.

(B) A hypothesis is undermined when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain if the hypothesis were true. - CORRECT- 1. A hypothesis- The first claim of the argument>> undermined- both facts go against the hypo.>> when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain if the hypothesis were true.-statement 2 and 3 tell us the usual protocol. But that did not happen.

(C) It is possible for a hypothesis to be false even though it is supported by all the available data.- There is no support for the hypothesis.

(D) Even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances, it is  erroneous to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred .- opposite to the conclusion. IF this were the structure then the conclusion would support the 1st claim.

(E) If two statements are known to be inconsistent with each other and if one of the  statements is known to be false , it cannot be deduced from these known facts that the other statement is true- No statement is false here.

rashwiniyer · Answer

Rumours are most likely false. So it means it is possible that hypothesis could be false. So why not C?

Posted from my mobile device

TheNightKing · Answer

Meeting -> Reshuffle (True for all previous)
No such meeting so far -> No reshuffle likely.

I feel it is more of B vs D. Rather than A.

aniket16c · Answer

Dear  generis   VeritasKarishma 
please correct my understanding, in case of any flaws

Meaning analysis:
Before any cabinet reshuffle (CR) there was a meeting (M). Timeline: M --> CR
There hasn't been a cabinet meeting, hence there won't be a cabinet reshuffle this week. ~M --> ~CR

Means - if the certain actions are necessary for a particular action to occur, then the final action won't occur if preceeding actions do not occur.

Option Analysis:
Option A: This choice states that if premise is 100% true then conclusion is also 100% true. Hence as per this choice, the main argument must provide a situation that shows that the conclusion is not true jst because the premise is not 100% true

Option B: This exactly as per the analysis.  Correct

Option C: This choice states that the conclusion can be false given the same base data. However, we are deriving the conclusion from the negated base data.

Option D: "if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances" --> In this context we can say that the meeting was caused by the reshuffle, and not the other way around. 
"erroneous to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under the circumstances in which it previously occurred" --> this means it is wrong to assume that the meeting will be conducted only if reshuffle occurs. But the main argument focuses on the reshuffle and not the meeting

Option E: Irrelevant

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week

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