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.
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
A powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
19 Jun 2013, 21:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
15% (01:37) correct
85%
(01:50)
wrong
based on 3000
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.
Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.
Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.
Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
19 Jun 2013, 23:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
This question uses one of the most common fallacies "Appeal to authority"
The fallacy form is:
A is an authority/expert on subject X
A makes claim Y about subject X
Therefore, Y is true.
APPLY TO THIS QUESTION:
I will paraphrase a bit to make the stimulus follow the fallacy above:
* Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.
* Siegfried: [From my experiences] My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents. So your point is simply untrue
Siegfried assumes his own experience is comprehensive enough ==> He is an expert /authority of this matter ==> His conclusion must be true.
This error is very common. When you hear some one says:
The scientists say that.....
I have a book that says......
I read a newspaper that says......
I saw on TV.........
From my own experience, I think.......
Immediately, you should think about the fallacy "appeal to authority". You should ask:
The scientists have expertise on this matter ?
The book is believable ?
The information on newspaper is true ?
The TV channel is biased or not?
Your own experience is comprehensive enough?
etc.......
ANALYZE EACH ANSWER
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Correct. As stated above.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
Wrong. The truth of what Siegfried said is actually true (from his family experience), not out of prove as B says.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
Wrong. Shell Game. The language used in C may make you think C is correct, but it's not. Actually, Siegfried opposed what Brunhilda mentioned because he said "this is simply untrue".
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
Wrong. Siegfried did not base his argument on future events, actually he mentioned something in the past (his family experience)
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Wrong. Siegfried did not oppose to any causal relationship here.
Hope it helps.
The fallacy form is:
A is an authority/expert on subject X
A makes claim Y about subject X
Therefore, Y is true.
APPLY TO THIS QUESTION:
I will paraphrase a bit to make the stimulus follow the fallacy above:
* Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.
* Siegfried: [From my experiences] My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents. So your point is simply untrue
Siegfried assumes his own experience is comprehensive enough ==> He is an expert /authority of this matter ==> His conclusion must be true.
This error is very common. When you hear some one says:
The scientists say that.....
I have a book that says......
I read a newspaper that says......
I saw on TV.........
From my own experience, I think.......
Immediately, you should think about the fallacy "appeal to authority". You should ask:
The scientists have expertise on this matter ?
The book is believable ?
The information on newspaper is true ?
The TV channel is biased or not?
Your own experience is comprehensive enough?
etc.......
ANALYZE EACH ANSWER
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
Correct. As stated above.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
Wrong. The truth of what Siegfried said is actually true (from his family experience), not out of prove as B says.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
Wrong. Shell Game. The language used in C may make you think C is correct, but it's not. Actually, Siegfried opposed what Brunhilda mentioned because he said "this is simply untrue".
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
Wrong. Siegfried did not base his argument on future events, actually he mentioned something in the past (his family experience)
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Wrong. Siegfried did not oppose to any causal relationship here.
Hope it helps.
13 Jul 2013, 02:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
mahendru1992
Hi mahendru1992
I'm glad to help.
**C says: example that is consistent [not inconsistent = consistent] with Brunhilda’s argument ==> C means Siegfried agreed with Bruhilda’s conclusion. But what Siegfried actually said, he said “That’s simply untrue….” <== Clearly, Siegfried disagreed with Bruhilda’s conclusion. Thus, C is wrong.
**Appeal to authority means some one is persuaded NOT by other people logic but by his/her “POWER”.
For example:
Peter: I don’t believe that Mars has water.
Mary: No, you’re wrong. My very famous professor believes that Mars has water.
Peter: Yes, you’re right. Mars should have water.
Mary and Peter believe that Mars has water just simply because a famous professor believe. That may be not true if a professor does not expertise in planet sciences.
This question is the same:
Siegfried says: That's simply untrue. [from my experience] My father's standard of living is nowhere ........ ==> He assumed that his experience has "power" enough to convince other people. But that's may be wrong if his experience is not comprehensive enough.
Hope it helps.
and uses a Double negative.
