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.
24 Dec 2025, 09:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
87% (01:55) correct
13%
(02:12)
wrong
based on 141
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A leading tech journal recently praised the joint research panel assembled by NVIDIA, calling its twelve-engineer task force “remarkably rigorous and unbiased” in its evaluation of emerging AI safety standards. Since Dr. Lin served on that task force, corporate clients adopting her independent AI-audit reports can confidently expect the same level of rigor and impartiality.
Which of the following exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that in the passage?
A. A team at a robotics company won an award for designing a drone-navigation module. Since Caleb worked on a different product line at the same company, his new project is also likely award-winning.
B. An open-source contributor helped build a widely trusted machine-learning benchmark suite. Since he tested a separate model last year, that model must also represent industry-standard quality.
C. The AI ethics division at Priya’s university is widely respected for its rigorous verification methods. Since Priya recently published a rigorous verification review, she is likely one of the contributors to the division’s strong reputation.
D. A multi-institutional consortium produced a highly reliable dataset for autonomous-vehicle training. Since Dr. Ahmadi was a member of that consortium, her solo data-labeling work for a different project will be just as reliable.
E. A group of analysts at a cloud-security firm unanimously voted to support a shift to zero-trust architecture. Since Jordan is one of those analysts, she also supports a transition to zero-trust practices.
Which of the following exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that in the passage?
A. A team at a robotics company won an award for designing a drone-navigation module. Since Caleb worked on a different product line at the same company, his new project is also likely award-winning.
B. An open-source contributor helped build a widely trusted machine-learning benchmark suite. Since he tested a separate model last year, that model must also represent industry-standard quality.
C. The AI ethics division at Priya’s university is widely respected for its rigorous verification methods. Since Priya recently published a rigorous verification review, she is likely one of the contributors to the division’s strong reputation.
D. A multi-institutional consortium produced a highly reliable dataset for autonomous-vehicle training. Since Dr. Ahmadi was a member of that consortium, her solo data-labeling work for a different project will be just as reliable.
E. A group of analysts at a cloud-security firm unanimously voted to support a shift to zero-trust architecture. Since Jordan is one of those analysts, she also supports a transition to zero-trust practices.
12 Days of Christmas Competition
This question is part of our holiday event
Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more
V40-20
24 Dec 2025, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
GMAT Club Official Explanation:
The original argument basically says:
The whole group was praised for being rigorous and unbiased.
Dr Lin was part of that group.
So her individual work must also be rigorous and unbiased.
That is the core flaw. It takes a quality that belongs to a group and assumes every individual member must personally have that same quality. The GMAT loves this type of mistake because it sounds sensible on the surface but collapses the moment you separate what a group does together from what one person does alone.
Now let’s see which choice does the same thing.
A. Caleb works at the same company, but not on the award winning team. The argument is assuming a company reputation spreads to random employees. That is not the same flaw. This is more of a “association means equal quality” mistake.
B. This one assumes that because someone once contributed to a trusted project, everything else they touch must be high quality. That is a personal track record issue, not a group quality issue. So again, different flaw.
C. This one looks close on the surface because it uses the same words as the stimulus like “rigorous” and “verification,” and it is talking about a group and an individual in the same breath. But the flaw is reversed. It is saying Priya’s individual work explains the group’s reputation. The original flaw was the opposite direction. The original argument took the group’s quality and pushed it onto one member. This one pushes the individual’s quality back onto the group. So even though the language feels similar, the logic is not.
D. This matches the original perfectly. A consortium (the group) produced something reliable. Dr Ahmadi was one member of that group. So the argument jumps to the conclusion that her independent work will also be reliable. Same exact flaw. Group achievement is being passed on to one individual without any actual evidence.
E. If the analysts unanimously supported the shift, then every single analyst actually did support it. So saying Jordan supports it too is not flawed at all. There is no error here.
So D is the only one that copies the same broken logic.
General Discussion
24 Dec 2025, 10:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer choice: D
The original argument reasons that an individual's independent work will be as rigorous and unbiased as a collective effort simply because that individual participated in the group. This is flawed as it transfers the quality of a group outcome to the quality of a member's solo work.
Why D: it mirrors the same reasoning flaw. A consortium collectively produced a highly reliable dataset and the argument then concludes that one member's independent work on a different project must be equally reliable.
Why not the others:
A: Relies on mere company association. Caleb was not part of the award-winning team, so the analogy is weaker.
B: Involves an open source contributor without any formal selection process, unlike the deliberately assembled panel in the original argument.
C: Reverses the direction of reasoning by inferring group reputation from an individual's work.
E: Covers shared opinion (voting behaviour), not the quality or rigour of independent work.
The original argument reasons that an individual's independent work will be as rigorous and unbiased as a collective effort simply because that individual participated in the group. This is flawed as it transfers the quality of a group outcome to the quality of a member's solo work.
Why D: it mirrors the same reasoning flaw. A consortium collectively produced a highly reliable dataset and the argument then concludes that one member's independent work on a different project must be equally reliable.
Why not the others:
A: Relies on mere company association. Caleb was not part of the award-winning team, so the analogy is weaker.
B: Involves an open source contributor without any formal selection process, unlike the deliberately assembled panel in the original argument.
C: Reverses the direction of reasoning by inferring group reputation from an individual's work.
E: Covers shared opinion (voting behaviour), not the quality or rigour of independent work.
