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 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.
10 Apr 2020, 03:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
90% (01:22) correct
10%
(01:26)
wrong
based on 295
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents. When ordered by chess officials to cease humming or else be disqualified from professional chess, Marianne protested the order. She argued that since she was unaware of her humming, her humming was involuntary and that therefore she should not be held responsible for it.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to support Marianne’s argument against the order?
(A) Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.
(B) Of a player’s actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.
(C) A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person’s interests.
(D) Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.
(E) Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to support Marianne’s argument against the order?
(A) Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.
(B) Of a player’s actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.
(C) A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person’s interests.
(D) Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.
(E) Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.
10 Apr 2020, 04:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
This one isn't too tough, I daresay. We have a person claiming that there humming is involuntary. That she should not be held responsible for involuntary actions. That's pretty much it. All we have to do is find some principle that supports this.
Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents. When ordered by chess officials to cease humming or else be disqualified from professional chess, Marianne protested the order. She argued that since she was unaware of her humming, her humming was involuntary and that therefore she should not be held responsible for it.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to support Marianne’s argument against the order?
(A) Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.
Doesn't support M's claim. She is saying it's involuntary and therefore she should not be held responsible.
(B) Of a player’s actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.
Yep, fits well with that we're looking for. If only voluntary actions should be used to disqualify, then the involuntary action (humming) cannot be used.
(C) A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person’s interests.
This would go against M's argument if anything.
(D) Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.
This effectively increases the types of behavior that are considered voluntary in the context of a match. This would harm M's argument, since an official could say "Well humming is considered voluntary when the match starts"
(E) Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.
I could see this one tripping people up. But (B) is a much better choice. Remember, though, M is saying her action is involuntary, so her humming cannot be really considered a regular ATTEMPT - something which, I daresay, requires conscious intent behind it.
Kudos would be nice!
Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents. When ordered by chess officials to cease humming or else be disqualified from professional chess, Marianne protested the order. She argued that since she was unaware of her humming, her humming was involuntary and that therefore she should not be held responsible for it.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to support Marianne’s argument against the order?
(A) Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.
Doesn't support M's claim. She is saying it's involuntary and therefore she should not be held responsible.
(B) Of a player’s actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.
Yep, fits well with that we're looking for. If only voluntary actions should be used to disqualify, then the involuntary action (humming) cannot be used.
(C) A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person’s interests.
This would go against M's argument if anything.
(D) Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.
This effectively increases the types of behavior that are considered voluntary in the context of a match. This would harm M's argument, since an official could say "Well humming is considered voluntary when the match starts"
(E) Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.
I could see this one tripping people up. But (B) is a much better choice. Remember, though, M is saying her action is involuntary, so her humming cannot be really considered a regular ATTEMPT - something which, I daresay, requires conscious intent behind it.
Kudos would be nice!
11 Apr 2020, 23:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: M shouldn't be held responsible as the action is involuntary.
What we need to find in the option? : An answer which matches with the logic that a person should not be held responsible, if the action perfomed is involuntary.
If you look carefully, Option "B" exactly matches this.
PS: all the other options are either against [weaken] or not valid.
Kudos, if this helps.
What we need to find in the option? : An answer which matches with the logic that a person should not be held responsible, if the action perfomed is involuntary.
If you look carefully, Option "B" exactly matches this.
PS: all the other options are either against [weaken] or not valid.
Kudos, if this helps.
