Alba: I dont intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election.

Question

Alba: I don’t intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election. She is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.

Tam: But Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate.

Alba: If Senator Frank sponsored it, it can’t be a very strong anticrime law.

Which of the following identifies the most serious logical flaw in Alba’s reasoning?

(A) The facts she presents do not support her conclusion that Senator Frank is soft on crime.
(B) She assumes without proof that crime is the most important issue in the upcoming election.
(C) She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.
(D) She attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds rather than on he merit as a political leader.
(E) In deciding not to vote for Senator Frank, she fails to consider issues other than crime.

eakabuah · Accepted Answer

The right answer is option C.

Alba: I don’t intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election. She is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.
Tam: But Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate.
Alba: If Senator Frank sponsored it, it can’t be a very strong anticrime law.

Alba Concluded that she does not intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election on the premise that the Senator is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.
Tam came in provided a fact that the Senator actually sponsored the latest anticrime law passes by the Senate. Alba maintained her stance by claiming that if the Senator sponsored the latest anticrime law, then the law in question couldn't be a very strong anticrime law.

What does Alba mean by the law that was sponsored by Senator Frank is not a strong anticrime law? She doesn't provide any further explanations to justify why she thinks the law couldn't be a strong anticrime law. She, therefore, failed to provide a valid fact to counter the fact provided by Tam that Senator Frank actually sponsored the latest anticrime law passes by Senate.

Option C states that Alba argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence. This is exactly the flaw in Alba reasoning in line with the above. The answer is, therefore, option C in my view.

mohagar · Answer

C is the most probable answer

All other options are not related to the reasoning at hand

madgmat2019 · Answer

A - there is no evidence for her assumption.
B - irrelevant
C - Correct
D - irrelevant
E - irrelevant

OA:C

Archit3110 · Answer

IMO C: is correct 
She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.

Alba: I don’t intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election. She is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.

Tam: But Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate.

Alba: If Senator Frank sponsored it, it can’t be a very strong anticrime law.

Which of the following identifies the most serious logical flaw in Alba’s reasoning?

(A) The facts she presents do not support her conclusion that Senator Frank is soft on crime.
(B) She assumes without proof that crime is the most important issue in the upcoming election.
(C) She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.
(D) She attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds rather than on he merit as a political leader.
(E) In deciding not to vote for Senator Frank, she fails to consider issues other than crime.

CareerGeek · Answer

Her reasoning questions the credentials of the anticrime law, which is not sync with her claim that Senator is not a supporter of war against crime in the first place.
So, her reasoning does not support her claim

IMO Option A

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
Alba believes that,   since F is not a strong supporter of war on crime, F's support for an anticrime law is not enough to change Alba's mind; even though, these are explicitly conflicting.

(A) the fact she presented that F does not strongly support war on crime, might support her conclusion;
(B) irrelevant;
(D) irrelevant;
(E) irrelevant;

Ans (C)  F does not strongly support war, however, she did support an anticrime law - these are conflicting, and Alba dismissed this.

chaitralirr · Answer

Alba claims that she won't vote for senator Frank because he does not support war crime. She also refutes the argument that senator had sponsored the latest anti crime law by saying the law was not strong.

IMO C

She is arguing in a circle and refutes the evidence

Posted from my mobile device

IMO C

She is arguing in a circle and refutes the evidence

Posted from my mobile device

Shahama · Answer

Why is D a wrong answer, In my opinion it is as valid as C. Why not?

AdelaRachel · Answer

Why A is wrong？ I think A and C both imply that Alba cannot provide enough evidence to support that Frank is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.

aryanm98 · Answer

C is correct of course. But this is not a great question because the other choices can be easily eliminated. I think the answer choices will be a lot closer on an official GMAT question.

aryanm98 · Answer

Probably because she does not present any facts in the first place, which eliminates A. She just makes use of a nonsensical circular reasoning, as others have explained above.

KritikaSurana · Answer

Can anyone please explain me the reason of selecting C is an answer and not E.
What's the explaination of not selecting option E?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

There are two problems with E. First, we can't say that it's a logical error to select a candidate on the basis of just one issue. We might find it wiser to consider a wide range of issues, but that's a matter of opinion. If Alba thinks crime is more important that all other issues, then she's free to take that position. We may disagree with it, but the issue is not one of logic, unless she supports her decision to focus on crime with logical propositions. Second, we don't actually know that she has failed to consider other issues. Perhaps the candidates hold similar positions on other issues she cares about, or perhaps she has additional reasons to vote against Senator Frank that she has simply not stated.

KritikaSurana

Can anyone please explain me the reason of selecting C is an answer and not E.
What's the explaination of not selecting option E?

chaitshar · Answer

Isn't calling someones policy trash solely because it comes from a particular person a personal attack? Circular logic is more along the lines of A means A and B means B.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

No, a personal attack would have to be a direct attack on a person's character, appearance, etc. I can see why you might not call C circular, but I think the intended idea here is that it's circular to choose what to believe based on our prior beliefs. Alba thinks that Frank is not a supporter of the war on crime, and dismisses evidence to the contrary. Why does she dismiss it? Because she thinks Frank is soft on crime. This is the specific kind of circular reasoning that C describes.

Alba: I dont intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election.

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

Alba: I dont intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election.

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