It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 12:57

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2007, 20:02
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.

I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 489

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2007, 20:20
I think B is the answer here.
It follows the logic: If P, then Q. If not Q, then not P.

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2007, 20:24
eileen1017 wrote:
I think B is the answer here.
It follows the logic: If P, then Q. If not Q, then not P.

Actually I went against B and C because the first sentence in both these choices have an if clause. While in the original statement, the fact that very few engineers left MicroFirm was just that...a fact. There is no preceding if clause which tell us "why" they might be choosing not to leave. Both the piano and the broken window have a condition that needs to be fulfilled -- Humidity or a ball thrown at it.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 138

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2007, 21:07
finder_003 wrote:
eileen1017 wrote:
I think B is the answer here.
It follows the logic: If P, then Q. If not Q, then not P.

Actually I went against B and C because the first sentence in both these choices have an if clause. While in the original statement, the fact that very few engineers left MicroFirm was just that...a fact. There is no preceding if clause which tell us "why" they might be choosing not to leave. Both the piano and the broken window have a condition that needs to be fulfilled -- Humidity or a ball thrown at it.

I am bit sure A is the answer.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 463

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2007, 21:28
I'll go against everybody and pick D. A would be my second choice, though.

I believe finder is right, there's no conditional on the first statement, only a statement of fact. We are not being told why Microfirm keeps employees, only that they do. CompTech assumes it's because of the salaries. The trick here is that the assumption is being expressed in the answer choice.

In D, the first sentence states that having salaries prevents people from leaving, thus, you must increase salaries to prevent people from leaving.

I believe this is not from the OG, because I haven't seen an official question that incorporates the assumption into the answer choice like this one does. I may be wrong.

This is what I think anyway. Regards.

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 08:43
asdert wrote:
I'll go against everybody and pick D. A would be my second choice, though.

I believe finder is right, there's no conditional on the first statement, only a statement of fact. We are not being told why Microfirm keeps employees, only that they do. CompTech assumes it's because of the salaries. The trick here is that the assumption is being expressed in the answer choice.

In D, the first sentence states that having salaries prevents people from leaving, thus, you must increase salaries to prevent people from leaving.

I believe this is not from the OG, because I haven't seen an official question that incorporates the assumption into the answer choice like this one does. I may be wrong.

This is what I think anyway. Regards.

Thanks Asdert!
I am still a little confused about why u picked D as ur choice
There is an obvious flaw in the original statement because it assumes that MicroFirm employees did not leave only because of their salary. I am trying to pick a similar flaw in D. It is true that D has no condition in the first line. Why not E?

This question is from Peterson and I have seen similar stuff on Kaplan too...

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 463

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 09:27
yeah, I knew it was not from an official source. You can tell right away, because the GMAT (edited to correct an unspecified pronoun) does not leave loose ends.

Answer E cannot be it because it doesn't have someone/something trying to be like another one. In the stem, Company B was trying to be like A. Does that makes sense?

What's the answer? Do you have the OG?

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 209

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 11:40
I would go for A. Very tough.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1098

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 0

Location: London

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 12:11
sounds to be A

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 12:37
I would go with D. I read through the explanations and am very convinced with the D option.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 13:18
finder_003 wrote:
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.

I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question

This is quite challenging, but the answer appears to be D.

We could paraphrase the passage as follows:

Microfirm's high salaries -> employees don't seek work elsewhere.
Therefore, without high salaries, employees will seek work elsewhere.

This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because you know
a -> b, it doesn't follow that (not a) -> (not b).

D follows the same pattern. D says that practicing leads to perfection, so not practicing does not lead to perfection. This is denying the antecedent.

A is a hasty generalization. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech will not leave their jobs if CompTech raises their salaries.

B is actually good reasoning. It's known as modus tollens: if a -> b implies (not b) -> (not a). Think about it: if Danny throwing the ball means the window breaks, then if the window's not broken, Danny didn't throw the ball.

C affirms the consequent. It says that a -> b, therefore b -> a. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech don't leave either, so they must be paid as much as MicroFirm employees.

And no one seems tempted by E, which is too strong, but not unreasonable.

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2471

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 14:23
finder_003 wrote:
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.

I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question

it should be A though it is not GMAT type question.

the passage says: increasing salary (x) up to the salary level of MicroFirm is enough to rtain the emplyoees (y) at CompTech. if x, then y.

A: not gmbling (x) is enough to avoid being penniless (y).

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 19

Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 97

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2007, 15:41
I think A. It's a confusion of correlation and causation.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 10:54
alrussell wrote:
I think A. It's a confusion of correlation and causation.

The OA is D

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 10:59
johnrb wrote:
finder_003 wrote:
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.

I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question

This is quite challenging, but the answer appears to be D.

We could paraphrase the passage as follows:

Microfirm's high salaries -> employees don't seek work elsewhere. -- In the statement MicroFirm employee's salary is never mentioned
Therefore, without high salaries, employees will seek work elsewhere.

This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because you know
a -> b, it doesn't follow that (not a) -> (not b).

D follows the same pattern. D says that practicing leads to perfection, so not practicing does not lead to perfection. This is denying the antecedent.
The original statement compares 2 very different companies, each os whose employees might have different reasons for leaving/sticking with the company. Here practice and perfection are both are inter-related and not exclusive (the way employees from 2 companies can be)
A is a hasty generalization. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech will not leave their jobs if CompTech raises their salaries.

B is actually good reasoning. It's known as modus tollens: if a -> b implies (not b) -> (not a). Think about it: if Danny throwing the ball means the window breaks, then if the window's not broken, Danny didn't throw the ball.

C affirms the consequent. It says that a -> b, therefore b -> a. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech don't leave either, so they must be paid as much as MicroFirm employees.

And no one seems tempted by E, which is too strong, but not unreasonable.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 11:09
finder_003 wrote:
johnrb wrote:
finder_003 wrote:
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?

a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.

b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.

c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.

d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.

e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.

I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question

This is quite challenging, but the answer appears to be D.

We could paraphrase the passage as follows:

Microfirm's high salaries -> employees don't seek work elsewhere. -- In the statement MicroFirm employee's salary is never mentioned
Therefore, without high salaries, employees will seek work elsewhere.

This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because you know
a -> b, it doesn't follow that (not a) -> (not b).

D follows the same pattern. D says that practicing leads to perfection, so not practicing does not lead to perfection. This is denying the antecedent.
The original statement compares 2 very different companies, each os whose employees might have different reasons for leaving/sticking with the company. Here practice and perfection are both are inter-related and not exclusive (the way employees from 2 companies can be)
A is a hasty generalization. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech will not leave their jobs if CompTech raises their salaries.

B is actually good reasoning. It's known as modus tollens: if a -> b implies (not b) -> (not a). Think about it: if Danny throwing the ball means the window breaks, then if the window's not broken, Danny didn't throw the ball.

C affirms the consequent. It says that a -> b, therefore b -> a. It would be correct if the passage concluded:

Employees at CompTech don't leave either, so they must be paid as much as MicroFirm employees.

And no one seems tempted by E, which is too strong, but not unreasonable.

Don't get hung up on the content of the passages (eg. employees vs. practice & perfection). The question hinges on logical connections between the statements, which occur at a higher level of abstraction.

Another way to look at the choice between A and D: A states that not gambling is SUFFICIENT for avoiding pennilessness, while D says that practice is NECESSARY for perfection. The original passage is giving a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. (They must raise salaries to keep their employees, but this is in fact not guaranteed to work; it's only guaranteed that they'll fail if they don't.)

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2471

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 11:19
finder_003 wrote:
alrussell wrote:
I think A. It's a confusion of correlation and causation.

The OA is D

I do not see any reason for D to be OA. A is far better than D.

any OE? Source?

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 19

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 463

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 11:26
finder_003 wrote:
This question is from Peterson and I have seen similar stuff on Kaplan too...

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2471

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2007, 13:42
asdert wrote:
finder_003 wrote:

This question is from Peterson and I have seen similar stuff on Kaplan too...

oh ok. i have nothing to say about these materials as i have not used them. but they are not up to the level taht OG/Manhatan materials have.

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 19

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 457

Kudos [?]: 223 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2007, 21:05
man this one was a tough one!

Kudos [?]: 223 [0], given: 4

re   [#permalink] 20 Nov 2007, 21:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.