Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,768
Given Kudos: 3,305
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
02 Jan 2020, 14:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
15% (02:18) correct
85%
(02:19)
wrong
based on 853
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested
(B) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does mot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law
(C) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant
(D) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested
(B) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does mot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law
(C) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant
(D) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,768
Given Kudos: 3,305
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
03 Jan 2020, 10:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.
Two pieces to this problem, as there is a first half and a second half.
1. Logic:Gov support --> Allow
2. Logic: Allow --> Government Subsidy
The logic of the second portion is just the contra-positive version of the first, so this is what we have to mirror.
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested -- 1.Arrested --> Break Law 2. Break law --> Arrested
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant -- 1. Supported --> Successful 2. Allowed Research --> Gov Grant
Now, using logic we can see that (E) has no pattern whatsoever to the original version. But what if you don't know logic? At this point, intuition is the best way to attack the problem. Attempt to actually understand the claim being made, understand that they are opposites, and try to match that. Much like any other question, you cannot make any assumptions. For example, supported and allowed in (E) are not synonymous.
Two pieces to this problem, as there is a first half and a second half.
1. Logic:
2. Logic: Allow --> Government Subsidy
The logic of the second portion is just the contra-positive version of the first, so this is what we have to mirror.
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested -- 1.
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant -- 1. Supported --> Successful 2. Allowed Research --> Gov Grant
Now, using logic we can see that (E) has no pattern whatsoever to the original version. But what if you don't know logic? At this point, intuition is the best way to attack the problem. Attempt to actually understand the claim being made, understand that they are opposites, and try to match that. Much like any other question, you cannot make any assumptions. For example, supported and allowed in (E) are not synonymous.
02 Dec 2025, 08:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is a tricky question as the options are close and confusing.
Let's understand the logic of the statement provided in the question.
"It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy."
To sum it up, the first statement is - no governmental support + not allowed.
The statement underlined is - not allowed + no government support. Take government subsidy to be government support, this simplification is key.
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested. Correct - first statement = not arrested + not break law; second statement = break law + arrested. It follows the same logic: in the same order thus following the partern in the question.
(B) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does mot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law. Incorrect: first statement = not arrested + not break law; second statement = arrested + broken law. The order in the second statement is reveresed here, hence not following the same pattern.
(C) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant. Incorrect: The issue here is that the first statement mentions 'every scientist who is supported by government grant' however the second statement talks about 'scientist only'. If it the second statement stated - no unsuccessful scientist is supported by a government grant.
(D) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful. Incorrect: for the same reasoning as above.
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant Incorrect: for the same reasoning as above.
Let's understand the logic of the statement provided in the question.
"It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy."
To sum it up, the first statement is - no governmental support + not allowed.
The statement underlined is - not allowed + no government support. Take government subsidy to be government support, this simplification is key.
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested. Correct - first statement = not arrested + not break law; second statement = break law + arrested. It follows the same logic: in the same order thus following the partern in the question.
(B) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does mot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law. Incorrect: first statement = not arrested + not break law; second statement = arrested + broken law. The order in the second statement is reveresed here, hence not following the same pattern.
(C) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant. Incorrect: The issue here is that the first statement mentions 'every scientist who is supported by government grant' however the second statement talks about 'scientist only'. If it the second statement stated - no unsuccessful scientist is supported by a government grant.
(D) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful. Incorrect: for the same reasoning as above.
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant Incorrect: for the same reasoning as above.
