Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have

Question

Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them.

The columnist’s argument proceeds by

(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation

(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter attitude is better justified than the former

(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type

(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false

(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding for this reason that the information is likely to be false

max0010 · Answer

The main point of the argument is "one cannot trust news reports that include statements from anonymous/unverifiable resources". The reason or better yet the analogy presented by the argument is that "when one gets an unsigned or unauthorized letter, the contents of such a letter cannot be trusted, and this is because, the sender/s of such an unsigned letter cannot be held responsible for the contents of the letter"

The reasoning pattern adopted by the argument is, the manner we deal with one situation should remain the same when dealing with a similar situation.

A: bingo, adheres to the pattern observed - correct answer
B: talks about drawing an analogy between two different attitudes - compares oranges to apples and says apples are better - out
C: talks about generalizing an attitude adopted from a  hypothetical  situation - out
D:  calling into question a certain type of evidence  the argument never questions any evidence - it only presents evidence as a reference - out
E:  calling into question the motives  the argument never talks about anyone's motives - out

abhimahna · Answer

The argument structure is simple:  It gives a general situation and then said the same could be applied to another situation.

(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous 
situation :  True. As per what we said.

(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter 
attitude is better justified than the former  : The author never compared one over another.

(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is justified in a hypothetical situation of that type  : There is no hypothetical situation.

(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is 
usually false :  No, he s not calling anything into question.

(E) calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information, and concluding for this reason that the information is likely to be false:  Same as D

nightblade354 · Answer

Bumping for further discussion

Rinng0 · Answer

Hi All,

Can someone help me to understand why option D is incorrect?

(D) calling into question a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is usually false.

Here, the author has presented an analogy between unsigned letter and anonymous sources, and mentioned that anonymous sources may content false information (" anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements "). Therefore, the author is cynical about the anonymous news sources (" It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources ").

nightblade354 · Answer

Rinng0 , the author points out the issue, but then uses that to support the claim. You interpreted the evidence as sketchy, which it is, but (D) says that the author uses that to show how the argument is false. But that is wrong. She is using it to help an analogy to show that the argument is correct. She isn't arguing against herself.

Rinng0 · Answer

nightblade354  Thanks for the clarification.

unraveled · Answer

Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. But news stories often include statements from anonymous sources, and these are usually quoted with the utmost respect. It makes sense to be skeptical of these sources, for, as in the case of the writer of an unsigned letter, their anonymity makes it possible for them to plant inaccurate or slanted statements without ever having to answer for them.

The columnist’s argument proceeds by

(A) pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation - CORRECT. POE but otherwise as well if passage is understood correctly, though it is difficult on the higher side.

(B) drawing an analogy between an attitude commonly adopted in one situation and a different attitude commonly adopted in another situation, and establishing that the latter attitude is  better justified  than the former - WRONG. No comparison is inferable from the passage.

(C) inferring that an attitude would be justified in all situations of a given type on the grounds that this attitude is  justified in a hypothetical situation  of that type - WRONG. No hypothetical situation is identifiable.

(D)  calling into question  a certain type of evidence by drawing an analogy between that evidence and other evidence that the argument shows is  usually false  - WRONG. Problem is more about usage of 'usually' though 'false' is also not an absolute.

(E)  calling into question the motives of those presenting certain information , and concluding for this reason that the information is likely to be false - WRONG. If someone is not concretely sure about identifying or not certain about 'calling into question' then 'motives of those presenting' should certainly raise a red flag to them.

Answer A.

Namangupta1997 · Answer

nightblade354

Option C talks about a hypothetical situation. " If you received an unsigned letter.... " is indeed a hypothetical situation. Is it not ?

nightblade354 · Answer

It is, although in this case it’s setting up a sufficient condition. But read (C) and look at how the conditional (hypothetical) statement and the argument lines up. What is supporting what? Try to piece each portion of (C) into the question stem and see if it lines up.

Posted from my mobile device

PSKhore · Answer

The columnist argues for skepticism toward anonymous news sources by drawing an analogy between them and unsigned letters.

Here's a breakdown of the argument:

Premise 1 : When someone receives an unsigned letter, they are likely to doubt the truth of its contents.

Premise 2 : News stories often quote anonymous sources with respect, despite the similarity to unsigned letters in terms of lacking accountability.

Reasoning : The columnist explains that in both situations (unsigned letters and anonymous sources), anonymity enables the delivery of inaccurate or biased information without consequences.

Conclusion : Therefore, it is reasonable to be skeptical of anonymous news sources.

Based on this analysis, the columnist’s argument aligns with option  (A) : pointing out that a certain attitude would presumably be adopted in one situation, in order to support the claim that a similar attitude would be justified in an analogous situation.

The "certain attitude" is skepticism.

The "one situation" is receiving an unsigned letter.

The "similar attitude" is skepticism.

The "analogous situation" is news stories with anonymous sources.

The columnist highlights the common and reasonable skepticism towards unsigned letters and then argues that the same level of skepticism is justified when encountering anonymous sources in news reports, due to the similar issue of anonymity and potential for unchecked inaccuracy

Source: AI Overview

Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have

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

Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have

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