From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants

Question

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?

(A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

(B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

(C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

(D) It overlooks the possibility that strong peasants were often targeted and killed by the local aristocracy for fear that they might lead a peasant uprising.

(E) The argument takes for granted that smart peasants knew how to make themselves appear weak when the army recruiters came through town.

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

I don't understand why OA is correct

This question is from grockit

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Frankly, I love this question. B is correct.

This question uses a very classical logic  "if-then" + "Logical Opposition"

The form is:
 If A, then B
Conclusion: if C, then Not B
Assumption: C is a  logical opposition  of A

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Hypothesis:  IF strong peasants in Czarist Russia (CR) go into army, THEN they will have shorter life spans.
 Conclusion:  IF peasants in CR are weak, THEN they will have a longer life span.
 Assumption   of this argument:   "WEAK peasants" is a logical opposition of “STRONG peasants” . Is this correct? Nope, It's totally  WRONG .

For example:  what is the logical opposition of hot?. Most people say "cold". It's wrong. The correct logical opposition of "hot" is "NOT hot".

** This is the same flaw of this argument.  The correct logical opposition of “STRONG peasants” is "NOT STRONG peasants" . But the argument says "to live longer, peasants should be  WEAK ". Must they be weak?  No, "Not strong" is enough , for instance "intermediate strong".

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.
 Wrong.  A says:  “not go into army” helps WEAK peasants  live longer. The fact  helps ONLY weak people? How about intermediate strong  peasants? The main conclusion is: Not go into army will help peasants  (in general ) live longer. A  may be  a correct ans if it say: "the only factor helping  WEAK  peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army"

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.
  Correct.   B shows one case of the logical opposition of “strong peasants” ==> "Intermediate strong peasants". B states the argument’s flaw.  The argument maintains that strong peasants will have shorter life, thus they should be weak to have longer life. That’s incorrect logic. You just need “NOT STRONG peasants” (for example: intermediate strong, little above weak, etc.) You DO NOT need “WEAK”.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.
 Wrong.  Definitely out of scope.  Nothing about “they have same file span”,  the argument just compare “strong” vs “weak” ==> That’s incorrect as stated above.

TAKEAWAY:  
 Logical Opposition of "X" is "NOT X"

Hope you enjoy this question.

Marcab · Answer

The conclusion is:  From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak

In the logical flaw type questions, we must remember one thing:
Any answer choice that describes information or a situation that does not occur in the stimulus is incorrect.
Nowhere we are told anything about "smart peasants". So we can't speculate anything about them. Hence E is wrong here.

A makes a necessary condition into a sufficient one, exaggerating a lot. We can't be so sure that it was the only reason.

B chooses the middle path, mentions the peasants with intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits better than others.
It presents an objection to the conclusion that without considering these peasants, how can one say that it was the best for peasants to remain weak.

hope that helps

diebeatsthegmat · Answer

if they dont want to die soon, the peasants had better be weak to live longer. 
the assumtion should be " being weak helps the peasants live longer" which is A
i also dont understand why A is correct. 
are you sure this is the correct answer choice from the grockit book?

colorblind · Answer

If these choices were pets to chose from, B would be the Labrador Retriever. Just the most reliable pet out of the three.
B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

You can be weak, enjoy the benefit of not enlisting in the army but with the cost of falling sick more often.
You can be strong, enjoy the benefit of not falling sick but with the cost of having to enlist in the army and in turn live a short life.
But what if you could just about be lean - not weak and not too strong - enjoy the benefits of both without any of their drawbacks.

Nidhibatra · Answer

Could someone please tell why is e incorrect?

Posted from my mobile device

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards