To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it prese

Question

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it presents psychological, moral, or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears, if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening. In fact, even a physically benign monster is horrific if it inspires revulsion.

Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above?

(A) Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific.
(B) A monster that is psychologically dangerous, but that does not inspire revulsion, is not horrific.
(C) If a monster triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous, then it is not horrific.
(D) If a monster is both horrific and psychologically threatening, then it does not inspire revulsion.
(E) All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous and inspire revulsion, are threatening.

yash312 · Answer

IMO B

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it presents psychological, moral, or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears, if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening. In fact, even a physically benign monster is horrific if it inspires revulsion.

Inference question:

(A) Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific.----> to extreme ( passage just states that a monster must be horrific, it does not mean all monster will be horific)

(B) A monster that is psychologically dangerous, but that does not inspire revulsion, is not horrific.--->correct ( passage states that psychologically dangerous or not, does not matter, but even a benign monster is horific ...if it inspires revulsion)....therefore, the least monster can also be dangerous if it inspires revulsion; therefore, a monster to is horific if it inspires revulsion; so if a monster does not inspire revulsion than it is not horific.

(C) If a monster triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous, then it is not horrific.---> incorrect ( passage states, benign monster can also be horific, so physically dangerous would definately be horific; and infantile yes or no, does not matter)

(D) If a monster is both horrific and psychologically threatening, then it does not inspire revulsion.---> incorrect ( opposite of the information infered from passage)

(E) All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous and inspire revulsion, are threatening.---> to extreme ( passage talks of a monster, not all monsters )

EAvinoo · Answer

Can any of the experts weigh in here, please? Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

fitzpratik · Answer

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening    . Whether  or not  it presents  psychological, moral, or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears , if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening   IF  monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening, that means regardless of whether monster does any of the underlined things, and for them to be threatening, monster has to be physically dangerous] .  In fact, even a physically benign monster is horrific if it inspires revulsion.

So, to be horrific Three things are required: Threatening, Physically dangerous (As it results in threatening) and revulsion

Which one of the following  logically follows  from the statements above?

(A) Any horror-story monster that is threatening is also horrific.  (Already stated in the argument) 
(B) A monster that is psychologically dangerous, but that does not inspire revulsion, is not horrific.  (No, as a psychologically dangerous monster may be physically dangerous and subsequently be horrific) 
(C) If a monster triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous, then it is not horrific.  (We dont know if this monster fulfills anyone one of the three criteria for being threatening,as stated above) 
(D) If a monster is both horrific and psychologically threatening, then it does not inspire revulsion.  (Not necessarily....a monster can be horrific, and so threatening, and may inspire revulsion) 
(E) All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous and inspire revulsion, are threatening.  (Correct: any monster who inspires revulsion, and it may be physically benign, is horrific....so a psychologically dangerous monster who inspires revulsion is horrific.)

EAvinoo · Answer

Thank you! I was confused with “C” but now it’s clear.

Posted from my mobile device

draftpunk · Answer

Your explanation for A is not correct -- it is not stated in the argument.

A states:  IF threatening, THEN horrific.

However, the first statement is merely stating:  ALL horrific ARE threatening.

Subtle difference, but thought I would provide clarification.

user9123 · Answer

I agree, to put it another way :

Passage says: To be horrific, a monster must be threatening.

Horrific => implies threatening

But not visa versa, threatening not does necessarily imply horrific.

Choice A is not right because the article only says A => B not B => A

Posted from my mobile device

akt715 · Answer

Why C is incorrect , can anyone explain???

AnirudhaS · Answer

(C) If a monster triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous, then it is not horrific.

From the stimulus we know,
Horrific if threatening
C says it is not horrific, so we have to prove monster is not threatening.

If monster is physically dangerous THEN it is threatening.
However, this does not necessarily mean the following - If monster is not physically dangerous THEN it is not threatening.

So we cannot conclude that the monster in question is actually not threatening. Hence, C cannot be inferred.

BIGDAMNGOD · Answer

(E)
Attackformal logicquestions withconfidence,or skipthem 
with confidence.

At the heart of this initially confusing set of statements are 
three if/then statements, rewritten in order as:
If a monster is horrific, then it’s threatening.
If a monster is physically dangerous, 
then it’s threatening.
If a monsteris physically benign yet inspires revulsion, 
then it’s horrific.

The rest of the stimulus is a lot of irrelevancy—note the 
phrase “Whether or not,” which means that everything else 
in the clause is irrelevant to the discussion. No prephrasing 
advisable; attack the choices in turn.

(A) commits the common logical error of reversing a 
statement’s (the firstone’s)if- and then-clauses. (A) is merely 
testingwhether youproperly translated thefirst sentence.

(B) 
leaves out the issue of whether the monster in question is 
threatening, so its horrific nature remains up in the air.

(C) isn’t 
necessarily true, since a physically benign (e.g., notphysically 
dangerous) monster could inspire revulsion and hence be 
horrific.

(D),too,isnotnecessarilytrue;(D)’sif-clauseistotally 
self-contained in that it describes a threatening and horrific 
monster, so inspiring revulsion may or may not be part of the 
package.

(E) rewards yourpatience.It’s inferablebasedonthelastand 
first sentences, in that order: If physically benign monsters 
inspire revulsion (as (E)’s monsters do), they’re horrific; and 
if they’re horrific they are threatening; and that’s exactly 
what (E)concludes.That (E) tosses intheirrelevantissueof 
psychological danger is of no importance

vinayparkash · Answer

The best way to solve such problems is using a venn diagram: the 'If' part will go in the inner circle, 'Then' part will make the outer circle. 
Now, premises can be expressed as mentioned above.
given:-
1. If horr(H) - then threatening(T)
2. if Physically Dangerous(PD)- then Threatening(T)
3. If Revulsion(R)- then H

make the venn diagrams now:

Now evaluate the choices based on above venn diagram. You will never commit a mistake. just make sure you correctly weigh the options.

ajitesh_750 · Answer

though the relation is perfectly implied in Option E, and got it correct, I spent time comparing B, could someone explain option B's rejection.

regards.

GMATNinja · Answer

Notice that (B) does not specify whether the monster is  physically  dangerous. All we know is that the monster is  psychologically  dangerous and that it does NOT inspire revulsion.

That monster may or may not be  physically  dangerous. If it IS physically dangerous, then it is threatening -- if it's threatening, then it is horrific.

In short, we can have a monster with these three characteristics:

psychologically  dangerous
 
 does NOT inspire revulsion
 
  physically  dangerous

That monster WOULD be horrific (because of #3), and that would contradict choice (B) because of #1 and #2.

I hope that helps!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it prese

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

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it prese

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