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.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
21 Feb 2026, 21:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
21 Feb 2026, 21:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
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.
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.
Answer: D
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.
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.
Answer: D
