Without information that could only have come from someone present at

Question

Without information that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written. No one witnessed the meeting, however, except the minister’s aide. It is clear, therefore, that the finance minister was ultimately brought down, not by any of his powerful political enemies, but by his own trusted aide.

The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?

(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion

(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur without another thing’s already having occurred, then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing

(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought about in that way

(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue

(E) treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect

nikhilgaur40 · Answer

Did not understand Why Option A?

itoyj · Answer

There are equal chances that the opposition leader has leaked about the meeting.

VirFortis · Answer

GMATNinja Can you please throw some light on how we arrived at option A and what is the thought process required to get to that option. I kind of eliminated all options based on my understanding of flaw being -> coincidental evidence was equated to causality and it took me 4m 54s and then guessed D. YOur explanation here would be a great help.

Thanks

Thanks

CEdward · Answer

It's weird, yes the possibility exists that the opposition was the culprit, but the way A is phrased doesn't make that clear.

A) basically says the evidence "the aide was the only person who witnessed" supports a competing conclusion (presumably that the opposition leaked the info). Awkward...

Thekingmaker · Answer

experts please explain why not E , yea A for sure after the answer why not E is , was and will be the question

sanya2711 · Answer

I think it is Option A because the argument fails to take into account that the leader of the opposition party could have also been the leak. This is correctly shown in option A.

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.

Without information that could only have come from someone present at

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

Without information that could only have come from someone present at

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