Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of 9 year olds can

Question

Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of 9 year olds can correctly identify the logos of major cigarette brands. However, of those 9 year olds who recognize such logos, less than 1% smoke. Therefore, there is little or no connection between recognition of cigarette brand logos and smoking.

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning above?

A) The concern about the long-term effects on dolphins of small quantities of mercury in the ocean is unfounded. During a three-month period, 1,000 dolphins were exposed to small quantities of mercury in seawater, with no effect on the animal.

B) Many ten-year-olds dream of becoming actors. Yet it is not likely they will seriously consider becoming actors, because most parents discourage their children from pursuing such a highly competitive career.

C) Most dentist recommend using fluoride to reduce incidence of cavities, but few recommend giving up candy entirely; so, using fluoride is probably more effective in preventing cavities than is avoiding sweets.

D) A large percentage of men exercise moderately throughout their lives, but the average life span of tose who do so is not significantly greater than of those who get little or no exercise. So there is little or no correlation between moderate exercise and good health.

E) Most people cannot name their legislative representatives. Nonetheless, this is insignificant, for when queried, most of them displayed an adequate command of current political issues.

ChiranjeevSingh · Accepted Answer

The way A is parallel to the given argument is not that both generalize from a wrong/small sample. The way A is parallel to the given argument is that both look at short-term results to make conclusions about long-term implications.

Option A says that the concern about  the long-term effects  is unfounded even though the dolphins are studied for only three months.

Similarly, the given argument says there is little or no connection between recognition of cigarette brand logos and smoking based on the current smoking habits in 9-year olds. It is not unreasonable to expect that such 'brand-aware' children will more than likely pick up smoking once they grow up. These children must be studied for years to identify a relationship between their current level of awareness about logos of cigarette brand and their likelihood of taking up smoking.

mikeCoolBoy · Answer

Both A and the stimulus follow the same method of reasoning. It helps to diagram the stimulus to see this relation

many children ---> identify logos
those children ---> not smoke
--------------------------------------------------
no correlation between identify logos and smoking

many dolphins ---> exposed to small quantities of mercury in seawater
those dolphins ---> no effect on the animal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
no correlation between mercury and effects on the animal

Let me know if this helps

KarishmaB · Answer

First note that the reasoning of the original argument is flawed. The reasoning of the correct option should be similarly flawed. Most 9 year olds can correctly identify the logos of major cigarette brands. However less than 1% of those who identified smoke. Conclusion: There is little or no connection between recognition of cigarette brand logos and smoking. What is the flaw? 9 yr olds are not allowed to/expected to smoke. So whether they know the brands or not will not tell us whether recognition and smoking are related. The point is the long term impact of recognition of brands. Are they more likely to smoke as adults? That will tell us whether recognition is related to smoking. A) The concern about the long-term effects on dolphins of small quantities of mercury in the ocean is unfounded. During a three-month period, 1,000 dolphins were exposed to small quantities of mercury in seawater, with no effect on the animal. All 1000 dolphins were exposed to small quantities of mercury and observed for 3 months. They showed no effect. Conclusion: Hence there is no connection between mercury and effects on dolphins. Note the flaw here is similar to the flaw we observed in the original argument. The short time of observation cannot help us draw conclusions about long term effects. This is the argument in short: Dolphins were exposed to mercury but they showed no effects for 3 months. It means there is no connection between mercury and effects. Hence, this is the correct answer. (B) Many ten-year-olds dream of becoming actors. Yet it is not likely they will seriously consider becoming actors, because most parents discourage their children from pursuing such a highly competitive career. There is no mention of exposure to anything in this argument. (C) Most dentists recommend using fluoride to reduce incidence of cavities, but few recommend giving up candy entirely; so, using fluoride is probably more effective in preventing cavities than is avoiding sweets. There is no long term conclusion based on some exposure and short term observations. D) A large percentage of men exercise moderately throughout their lives, but the average life span of tose who do so is not significantly greater than of those who get little or no exercise. So there is little or no correlation between moderate exercise and good health. This logic is not flawed in the same way. If large % of men do exercise moderately throughout their lives and their avg life span is similar to those who do not exercise, then it seems that exercise has no impact on longevity. The problem is that the conclusion says that exercise has no correlation with good health. Now, lifespan and good health are not the same. What if men who exercise stay in good health throughout their lifespan but those who do not exercise suffer problems and take medications and are able to reach that lifespan but with struggle? So this argument is flawed too but in a different way. (E) Most people cannot name their legislative representatives. Nonetheless, this is insignificant, for when queried, most of them displayed an adequate command of current political issues. There is no long term conclusion based on some exposure and short term observations. Answer (A) Discussion on Mimic Questions: https://youtu.be/dHU17plF2mc

chetan2u · Answer

ill go for A...
 in original argument ,a case of 9 yr old is taken to justify a pt .. similarly in A a gp of dolphin is taken to justify the effect on the entire species..

mrsmarthi · Answer

One more vote for D.

The problem I see with A is that, when 1000 dolphins were exposed to small quantities of mercury in sea water, none of them are effected. But the reasoning in the stimulus is stating that less thatn 1% are effected.

ichha148 · Answer

I will also go for D and wording in D also matches with question wording . I am suspicious that D may be wrong as this was quite obvious choice .

mikeCoolBoy · Answer

you were all right D is a trap answer

The correct answer choice is A. The method of reasoning in the stimulus is a cause-effect relationship that is denied. The flawed in reasoning is that you cannot extract that conclusion from nine-year-olds who cannot purchase their own cigarettes. The problem with option D is that switches terms from the premise to the conclusion. The premise is about "average life span", but the conclusion is about "good health". Another problem is that this answer relates the group to an average ("average life span") whereas the stimulus related the group to a specific result ("smoking")

samusa · Answer

I think D is wrong because the reasoning behind D is not flawed.

A is correct because the reasoning behind A is definitely flawed.

A talks about long term effect and carries out the exp. for only 3 months.

Out of large sample, only 1000 are selected as though the 1000 from a representative sample.

Skywalker18 · Answer

generalizing the behavior of 9-year-olds to all humans is incorrect (selection bias)
But 1000 dolphins does not seem like a minuscule number.

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  mikemcgarry  ,  egmat  ,  RonPurewal  ,  DmitryFarber  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  ccooley  ,  ChiranjeevSingh ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasKarishma  , other experts-- please enlighten

soumya170293 · Answer

Would anyone please explain the POE of E ?

Statement :

Many children -> identify logos

Those children -> Don't smoke

Option A :

Many dolphins -> exposed to small quantities of mercury

Those dolphins -> no effect of mercury on the animal

Option E :

Most People - > have adequate command of current political issues.

Those people - > Don't know the name their legislative representatives

Thanks in Advance .

aniket16c · Answer

If I may help:

There are two primary flaws in the main argument:
1. The argument is trying to a make a generalized statement from a selective group:
In case of option E, the argument considers "most people". So it has considered the entire group. For the option to be in contention, it could have mentioned a group of men in their 20s, or a group of people belonging to Arizona etc.

2. As explained by  ChiranjeevSingh , the argument is trying to make long term predictions from short term results.
In case of option E, the argument is not making a long term prediction. It conducted the survey few months back and currently the concerned people do not know their representatives, but know the issues. There isn't a long term prediction!

Hope that helps!

mSKR · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma   AndrewN

Please give your expert opinion on A vs D.

I choose D because: exercise has no effect on how long can u live
as given in argument: remembering logo no effect how much you smoke

Thanks!

Kushchokhani · Answer

Too strange that LSAT official ques has spelling error - "tose" instead of "those". Maybe error in posting by  mikeCoolBoy

aa1411 · Answer

Tough question, does anyone have any tips for method of reasoning problems? I tend to focus on the wrong logic and hence get it wrong.

For this, agreed that the point of contention is time frame. But I focused on the sample and went with E. Appreciate the help.

thuanan2310 · Answer

GMATNinja  could you help on this please. I couldn’t seem to rationalise the supporting answers above.

Posted from my mobile device

Raman109 · Answer

The question is about the misleading statistics and narrow vision. The majority knows the brands, but there is no correlation since less than 1% smoke. What if there is a correlation, but nine years is a short duration to measure that?

Option A is likewise the misleading statistics and narrow vision. Just that 1,000 dolphins did not show effects in three months, it's not right that mercury has no effect. What if the impact will start coming after a year?

Option D is more of a comparison error. The author assumes that the life span and good health mean the same.

Prakruti_Patil · Answer

I understand that D is a different type of flaw.. but I am unable to properly articulate it. Could explain explain how it is different from the long term impact flaw please

DmitryFarber · Answer

Prakruti_Patil

In D, the premise actually  does  match the timeframe of the conclusion. In other words, rather than reasoning from a current situation (9-year-olds can recognize brands) to a more general conclusion (no connection between recognition and smoking), D reasons by connecting two long-term trends: lifelong exercise and longevity. If the conclusion in D were about longevity, this wouldn't be flawed at all! If people who exercise don't live longer, then exercise and longevity aren't correlated. The only reason that D is flawed is that the conclusion addresses health rather than lifespan, and we don't know anything about that. So it's relying on a term shift from one result (lifespan) to another (health).

Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of 9 year olds can

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

Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of 9 year olds can

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