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 2512:30 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 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.
27 Sep 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
58% (02:08) correct
42%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 571
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Psychiatrist: While the first appearance of a phobia is usually preceded by a traumatizing event, not everyone who is traumatized by an event develops a phobia. Furthermore, many people with phobias have never been traumatized. These two considerations show that traumatizing events do not contribute to the occurrence of phobias.
The reasoning in the psychiatrist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats the cause of the occurrence of a type of phenomenon as an effect of phenomena of that type
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that some psychological events have no causes that can be established by scientific investigation
(C) builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for that conclusion
(D) takes for granted that a type of phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if phenomena of these two types are invariably associated
(E) derives a causal connection from mere association when there is no independent evidence of causal connection
The reasoning in the psychiatrist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) treats the cause of the occurrence of a type of phenomenon as an effect of phenomena of that type
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that some psychological events have no causes that can be established by scientific investigation
(C) builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for that conclusion
(D) takes for granted that a type of phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if phenomena of these two types are invariably associated
(E) derives a causal connection from mere association when there is no independent evidence of causal connection
02 Oct 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Another common flaw. Very simple example: “Studies show that cigarette smoking is highly correlated with lung cancer. But many smokers never get lung cancer, and many lung cancer patients have never smoked. Therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer.” Bullshit! Variables do not have to be associated 100 percent of the time in order to still be causally related.
A) No, the argument doesn’t confuse cause and effect.
B) No, the argument doesn’t throw up its hands and say, “Therefore we’ll never know what causes some phobias.”
C) No, the argument isn’t circular. This would be the answer if the argument had said “My daddy can definitely beat up your daddy, because if they got in a fight, my daddy would kick your daddy’s ass.”
D) Yep. This is exactly it. The speaker has assumed that if George Burns can smoke every day of his life without getting lung cancer, then smoking and lung cancer are not “invariably associated,” and therefore smoking can’t cause lung cancer.
E) No, this answer has two problems. First, it can’t claim the argument presents “no independent evidence of causal connection” when it specifically says “the first appearance of a phobia is usually preceded by a traumatizing event.” What is that, if not evidence? “No evidence” is a super-high standard for an answer choice to bear… the argument has to basically have nothing going for it in order to have “no evidence.” The psychiatrist specifically mentions a correlation, and while correlation does not prove causation, it’s at least “some evidence” that suggests causation. The second problem with this answer is that the psychiatrist in the end claims that there is no causal connection. So he doesn’t “derive a causal connection” after all—he does the opposite.
Our answer is D.
02 Oct 2021, 04:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
Psychiatrist: While the first appearance of a phobia is usually preceded by a traumatizing event, not everyone who is traumatized by an event develops a phobia. Furthermore, many people with phobias have never been traumatized. These two considerations show that traumatizing events do not contribute to the occurrence of phobias.
The reasoning in the psychiatrist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
T Events => Phobia
T Events => No Phobia
No T events => Phobia
Means T events don't contribute to phobia. The argument is saying that the relation of few T events with Phobia means nothing when establishing the relation because rest of both don't have any relation.
(A) treats the cause of the occurrence of a type of phenomenon as an effect of phenomena of that type
Treat cause as effect. T events as phobia? No
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that some psychological events have no causes that can be established by scientific investigation
Out of scope
(C) builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for that conclusion
Conclusion into support. No this is not what happening here.
(D) takes for granted that a type of phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if phenomena of these two types are invariably associated
invariably means always. Looks like what we want.
(E) derives a causal connection from mere association when there is no independent evidence of causal connection
seems to say opposite of what argument is stating.
Hence D.
The reasoning in the psychiatrist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
T Events => Phobia
T Events => No Phobia
No T events => Phobia
Means T events don't contribute to phobia. The argument is saying that the relation of few T events with Phobia means nothing when establishing the relation because rest of both don't have any relation.
(A) treats the cause of the occurrence of a type of phenomenon as an effect of phenomena of that type
Treat cause as effect. T events as phobia? No
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that some psychological events have no causes that can be established by scientific investigation
Out of scope
(C) builds the conclusion drawn into the support cited for that conclusion
Conclusion into support. No this is not what happening here.
(D) takes for granted that a type of phenomenon contributes to the occurrence of another type of phenomenon only if phenomena of these two types are invariably associated
invariably means always. Looks like what we want.
(E) derives a causal connection from mere association when there is no independent evidence of causal connection
seems to say opposite of what argument is stating.
Hence D.
