It was a really lengthy argument and especially the answer choices for me. Yes I did take an additional amount of time. I am not going to lie, I took somewhere around 4 minutes to come to a right answer.
Alright let us first deconstruct the argument here:
1. A district found out that people or students who participated in the post-school chess competition did fairly better in the state-mandated essential skills mathematics exam than the students who did not participate in the chess program.
2. The second premise the argument gives us is that for a district-wise improvement we need:
First to retain the public support
Second to increase the competitiveness of graduates in the job market.
Therefore the district should mandate participation in the chess program for all high school students because
the district assumes that by mandating all students in the chess program, the students from this district will do fairly well in the maths exam which is mandatory by the state and therefore eventually be more competitive in the job market.
We can clearly see the most common linkage between the premise and the conclusion in GMAT-CR, that the author assumes correlation as causation and therefore states her conclusion. Now we simply have to look for an argument in the option choices which does similar things. Now we can also eliminate some answer choices on the basis of argument structure as well which doesn't follow the structure we discussed above. Bunuel
School Board Member: A recent study of high school students in our district found that those who participate in the district's after-school chess program scored significantly higher on the State-mandated Essential Skills in Mathematics (ESM) exam than those who do not. District-wide improvements in average ESM scores are vital to retain public support for the district and to increase the competitiveness of our graduates in the job market. Therefore, the district should mandate participation in the chess program for all high school students.
Which of the following arguments exhibits a flaw similar to the flaw in the reasoning above?
(A)
Financial Regulator: Any bank in our country that handles international wire transfers on behalf of their clients must comply with regulations mandating strict data encryption protocols. Meridian National Bank does not currently have the technical ability to encrypt customer data during wire transfers. Therefore, Meridian National Bank cannot legally provide international wire transfers to their customers.
(B)
Tech Journalist: Industry surveys indicate that tech startups that secure venture capital funding within their first year have significantly higher survival rates than startups that do not secure funding in their first year. High survival rates are vital to maintaining a robust innovation sector and driving job growth. Therefore, any tech startup that secures venture capital funding in its first year is very likely to survive.
(C)
Agricultural Advisor: A recent agricultural study found no evidence of crop failure among organic farms that utilized a new predatory wasp species for pest control. Eliminating crop failure is vital to stabilizing food prices and ensuring national food security. Therefore, commercial farming operations can completely eliminate the risk of crop failure by adopting this pest control method.
(D)
Physician: National health data indicates that adults who run in at least one marathon per year have significantly lower rates of heart disease than those who do not. Reducing heart disease is vital because it is a leading cause of death, and its treatment places a massive burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, the government should require all citizens to annually participate in a marathon.
(E)
Vice Principal: At our school, students who want to enroll in calculus must first take pre-calculus, because the principles taught in pre-calculus help prepare students for the more advanced topics taught in calculus. Therefore, any student who has not taken pre-calculus, here or elsewhere, will not be permitted to enroll in calculus.
⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
Option A is completely fine. There is no flaw in this argument.
Option B does contain a flaw but it is different from the one in the argument. Option B talks about what has happened in the past will continue to happen in the future, which is quite different from the one we have discussed in the argument.
Option C also contains a different kind of law which is not the same as in the argument. Here a premise has been used to derive a conclusion which is way too broad or goes to the extent which is not covered by the premises.
Option D. Upon close observation of option D's structure, it is similar to the one in the argument. On top of it the premises observed here are mentioning that heart rate is lower for the people who run a marathon and costs too much money for the government. The next statement tells us that heart diseases is a massive burden for the government healthcare system to provide treatment for the same. Therefore the government should mandate citizens to participate in a marathon because here the government is trying to achieve a goal of reducing the burden. Therefore the government is taking the correlated factor of heart health with marathon and assuming it has causation to derive its conclusion.
Option E doesn't contain any flaw. It's completely fine.