Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the

Question

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.

pqhai · Accepted Answer

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:     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.

pqhai · Answer

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.   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.

docdrizzeally · Answer

The negative correlation apparently cannot be stated as correlation etc in E but to my logical mind it seems the right bucket for this reasoning? thanks to the primary explanation though i can get to see A

pqhai · Answer

Dear docdrizzeally

Per my understanding, E is wrong because it's half right, half wrong.

Half right:  E may be half correct by stating about the usage of evidence of a correlation. The fact Siegfried said is a correlation

Half wrong:  E is also half wrong, because Brunhilda did not talk about any causal relationship. Note that  the causal relationship form is: A & B both exist ==> A causes B . However, Brunhilda's conclusion is just  a prediction (X cannot be better than Y)  without any explanation of relationship between X and Y  ==> That's not the form of "causal relationship".

Hence, E is not correct.

Regards.

happyinlove505 · Answer

Hello pqhai,

thank you for the explanation, but I still think that C is the right choice while I do not think that A is the right choice.

Why I see C correct is because B talks about confidence (or probability) and S talks about actual case.
I'll try to provide Analogous example, not sure if it is good although:
B: Today's Real-Barcelona match is the first one to not have a true favorite.
S: That is not true. Those teams played 10 times this year and Barcelona won 7 games.

However, now I reread the answer C which says "example that is not INconsistent". I read it first as "not consistent". So if "inconsistent" is not misspelled, then C is wrong.

Then A is probably the right answer, but I do not see any specific appeal to authority. Probably, that's an Idiom that I am not aware of

I will google it.

I will google it.

pqhai · Answer

Hi happyinlove505 "Appeal to authority" is a LSAT term rather than GMAT's. I found a topic about " logical fallacies " for you. I bet you can learn a lot form that topic. Please see link below: a-logical-fallacy-is-an-error-of-reasoning-it-either-has-40345.html Best.

reto · Answer

Very though!

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. 
 Seems the correct one, although I am not quite sure. Does "authority" refer to Siegfried's parents? Then that's the one. A bit tricky for non-natives.

B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove. 
No. Siegfried is relying on experienced values from his parents. So he does not assume anything but the future trend.

C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. 
Clearly out.

D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events. 
Looks also tempting, but Siegfried does rely on past events.

E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
The reasoning of Siegfried includes no correlation. It is just a reasoning based on past data. So that's why this one is out.

Opinions?

Abhishek009 · Answer

Even I am also with (A) this seems the most promising.

Powerscore GMAT CR Bible States appeal to authority as -

An Appeal to Authority uses the opinion of an authority in an attempt to persuade the reader. The flaw in this form of reasoning is that the authority may not have relevant knowledge or all the information regarding a situation, or there may a difference of opinion among experts as to what is true in the case.

In this case Brunhilda talks about future generations , however Siegfried talks about comparison of standard of living of people with that of his earlier generation, ( might be the situation is different)

In my opinion Siegfried could not provide a convincing arguement to challenge Brunhilda's arguement.

This is indeed a great question!!

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

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.

Show Answer

Official Answer

A

Abhishek009 Powerscore GMAT CR Bible States appeal to authority as - Coming to option C, I realized it is well laid trap for people like me :evil:

and uses a Double negative. C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. not inconsistent means consistent as two negative words cancel out each other. i.e., It offers an example that is consistent with Brunhilda's argument. (Opposite. same as B) refer below link to learn more about Double negatives. double-negatives-206717.html?hilit=double

reto · Answer

I found some good explanation:

Here Brunhilda generalizes that her generation will be the first that will not enjoy a better standard of living than their parents. Siegfried disagrees and points out that he lives better than his parents do and his parents do not live as well as their parents did before them. To him, his own personal experience disproves Brunhilda's argument. (A) describes an error that Siegfried has made. He sites his own limited experience as if it were conclusive proof that Brunhilda is wrong. He is the authority on his family's situation, but it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion he did based upon one individual scenario. (B) is incorrect because he is not simply assuming a position to be true without offering any evidence. He offers evidence to prove his point. It is just not comprehensive. (C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. (D) is incorrect because Siegfried's argument is based upon current and past realities (his standard of living, his parents', and his grandparents'), not upon "unproven speculation about future events." (E) is wrong because Siegfried does not argue a causal relationship at all. He does not attempt to explain what causes the difference in standard of living between him and his parents. He just uses that standard of living difference as an example to dispute Brunhilda.

SVaidyaraman · Answer

Interesting question. What A means is that it is not correct to draw a conclusion from limited knowledge. In my view C says that Siegfried offering a specific case does not disprove the generalization. That is more or less the same as A, which is Siegfried is using limited knowledge for his conclusion.

TheCrimsonViper · Answer

Hi GMAT Club Members (also  pqhai  ), please correct the flaw in my reasoning. I believe (C) is correct.

(Option C) It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

Reasoning:
1.  'not inconsistent' ≠> 'consistent' , at least in this sentence. 'not inconsistent' can mean something irrelevant as well. And that's exactly the case here.
2. Brunhilda made a claim about a generational trend, a broader theme. A one-off example, by Siegfried doesn't disprove anything. Brunhilda never claimed that everyone in their generation would have an inferior standard of living than their parents'. Hence, Siegfried's argument doesn't disprove Brunhilda's. In other words, it is NOT inconsistent.
 Note:  It would have disproved Brunhilda's argument if it said something inconsistent/contradictory.

I'll provide another example for better understanding.
Statement I: Generation Alpha risks cognitive devolution compared to their parents due to an over-reliance on artificial intelligence.
Statement II: No way! I am smarter than my dad!

Here, Statement II doesn't disprove Statement I. It's simply orthogonal.

One more...
Stephanie: Girls tend to have longer hair than guys.
Brian: Not a chance! My hair is longer than yours!

Again, Brian doesn't disprove anything. And Stephanie? She smirked and said, "Yeah, you're right, genius!".

TheCrimsonViper · Answer

Hi GMAT Club Members (also  pqhai  ), please correct the flaw in my reasoning. I believe (C) is correct.

(Option C) It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.

Reasoning:  
1.  'not inconsistent' ≠> 'consistent' , at least in this sentence. 'not inconsistent' can mean something irrelevant as well. And that's exactly the case here.
2. Brunhilda made a claim about a generational trend, a broader theme. A one-off example, by Siegfried doesn't disprove anything. Brunhilda never claimed that everyone in their generation would have an inferior standard of living than their parents'. Hence, Siegfried's argument doesn't disprove Brunhilda's. In other words, it is NOT inconsistent.
 Note:  It would have disproved Brunhilda's argument if it said something inconsistent/contradictory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll provide another example for better understanding.
Statement I: Generation Alpha risks cognitive devolution compared to their parents due to an over-reliance on artificial intelligence.
Statement II: No way! I am smarter than my dad!

Here, Statement II doesn't disprove Statement I. It's simply orthogonal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

One more...
Stephanie: Girls tend to have longer hair than guys.
Brian: Not a chance! My hair is longer than yours!

Again, Brian doesn't disprove anything. And Stephanie? She smirked and said, "Yeah, you're right, genius!".

Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the

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

Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the

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