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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 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- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
D
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:
65% (01:54) correct
35%
(01:58)
wrong
based on 730
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Three-year-old Sara and her playmate Michael are both ill and have the same symptoms. Since they play together every afternoon, Sara probably has the same illness as Michael does. Since Michael definitely does not have a streptococcal infection, despite his having some symptoms of one, the illness that Sara has is definitely not a streptococcal infection either.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) presupposes what it sets out to prove
(B) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(C) fails to distinguish between acute streptococcal infections on the one hand, and less severe streptococcal infections on the other
(D) treats evidence that the conclusion is probably true as if that evidence establishes the certainty of the conclusion
(E) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective groups that they are each intended to represent
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) presupposes what it sets out to prove
(B) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon
(C) fails to distinguish between acute streptococcal infections on the one hand, and less severe streptococcal infections on the other
(D) treats evidence that the conclusion is probably true as if that evidence establishes the certainty of the conclusion
(E) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective groups that they are each intended to represent
16 May 2017, 19:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
this question is from LSAT Prep Test 19, Section 4, Question 1. The correct answer has to be D. Please change it in the question.
Let us simplify the argument given --
Premise
1. Sara and Michael both ill and have same symptoms
2. they play together every afternoon
3. Hence, they probably have the same illness
4. Michael does not have streptococcal infection (despite having some symptoms of that infection)
Conclusion
Sara definitely does not have a streptococcal infection
Note that there is a shift from "probably have the same illness" to the conclusion "definitely does not have streptococcal infection".
This is the error in reasoning here -- which answer option mentions this? Option D.
Let us look at other answer options --
Option A - Incorrect
the argument does not exactly presuppose what it concludes -- the premise talks about a "probable" event, the conclusion "definite" event.
Option B - Incorrect
Cause and effect scenario is mentioned here in points 2 and 3 -- play together --> probably have the same disease
No mistaking effect for cause is done here.
Option C - Incorrect
"acute vs less severe" is irrelevant to the conclusion
Option E - Incorrect
We are not "generalizing" from the cases of Michael and Sara.
Let us simplify the argument given --
Premise
1. Sara and Michael both ill and have same symptoms
2. they play together every afternoon
3. Hence, they probably have the same illness
4. Michael does not have streptococcal infection (despite having some symptoms of that infection)
Conclusion
Sara definitely does not have a streptococcal infection
Note that there is a shift from "probably have the same illness" to the conclusion "definitely does not have streptococcal infection".
This is the error in reasoning here -- which answer option mentions this? Option D.
Let us look at other answer options --
Option A - Incorrect
the argument does not exactly presuppose what it concludes -- the premise talks about a "probable" event, the conclusion "definite" event.
Option B - Incorrect
Cause and effect scenario is mentioned here in points 2 and 3 -- play together --> probably have the same disease
No mistaking effect for cause is done here.
Option C - Incorrect
"acute vs less severe" is irrelevant to the conclusion
Option E - Incorrect
We are not "generalizing" from the cases of Michael and Sara.
ravigupta2912
08 Apr 2020, 03:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) presupposes what it sets out to prove -- Lets keep this. Sounds similar to how the passage is worded.
(B) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon -- Incorrect. The passage does not confuse between the causal relationship of symptoms (causes) and diseases (effect).
(C) fails to distinguish between acute streptococcal infections on the one hand, and less severe streptococcal infections on the other -- Incorrect. Completely out of scope.
(D) treats evidence that the conclusion is probably true as if that evidence establishes the certainty of the conclusion -- Correct and better choice than A. The premise is worded as such "probably" have the same disease and the conclusion says "definitely" not have disease X. Therefore, the passage extrapolates evidence for conclusion probably being true to certainly being true.
(E) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective groups that they are each intended to represent -- Incorrect. Out of scope. We aren't talking of any group here.
(B) mistakes the cause of a particular phenomenon for the effect of that phenomenon -- Incorrect. The passage does not confuse between the causal relationship of symptoms (causes) and diseases (effect).
(C) fails to distinguish between acute streptococcal infections on the one hand, and less severe streptococcal infections on the other -- Incorrect. Completely out of scope.
(D) treats evidence that the conclusion is probably true as if that evidence establishes the certainty of the conclusion -- Correct and better choice than A. The premise is worded as such "probably" have the same disease and the conclusion says "definitely" not have disease X. Therefore, the passage extrapolates evidence for conclusion probably being true to certainly being true.
(E) makes a general claim based on particular examples that do not adequately represent the respective groups that they are each intended to represent -- Incorrect. Out of scope. We aren't talking of any group here.
) not watertight, it is reasonable. 
