A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type

Question

A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type of high-salinity sea water. While not dangerous, these infections are painful and often unnoticeable, at least to those who contract them. Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea" have contracted the infection in varying levels of severity. Although bathing in "The White Sea" does not always lead to a contraction of the infection, the only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether.

Which of the following indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning?

A) It relies on evidence about a specific place to make a recommendation about an entire class of such places.

B) It assumes that one possible cause of a condition is the only cause of that condition.

C) It assumes to be true what it sets out to prove.

D) It makes a generalization based on one segment of the population.

E) It contradicts itself by proclaiming a condition to be not dangerous and then offering a recommendation to avoid that condition.

Zarrolou · Accepted Answer

This is tough as almost all options reflect part of the reasoning, however only one is flawed.

Which of the following indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning?

A) It relies on evidence about a specific place to make a recommendation about an entire class of such places. 
This reflect the reasoning  "Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea"" =>avoid all Sea waters.
This is a legit reasoning, as the infection is linked with high-salinity sea water, so this recommendation makes sense.

B) It assumes that one possible cause of a condition is the only cause of that condition. 
IMO CORRECT. The first line states:  "A certain eye infection  has been linked  to exposure to a certain type of high-salinity sea water"  => " the only way  to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether.".
We know that the infection has been linked to water, but could be linked to other factors as well, we don't know. But the passage excludes this possibility by stating that the ONLY way to avoid the infection is to refrain from sea water. This is a flawed reasoning.

C) It assumes to be true what it sets out to prove. 
This is simply not the case.

D) It makes a generalization based on one segment of the population. 
This reflects the line  "Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea" have contracted the infection in varying levels of severity." . However the text does not say " because  the children have contracted the infection everybody should avoid the sea water". The text does not generalize in such way.

E) It contradicts itself by proclaiming a condition to be not dangerous and then offering a recommendation to avoid that condition. 
It's true that the passage says that the infection is not dangerous, but it says that is painful; so offering a recommendation to avoid it is not a flawed reasoning.

fameatop · Answer

A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type of high-salinity sea water. While not dangerous, these infections are painful and often unnoticeable, at least to those who contract them. Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea" have contracted the infection in varying levels of severity. Although bathing in "The White Sea" does not always lead to a contraction of the infection, the only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether.
 Premise- Infection is linked to bathing in  high-salinity  sea water
Premise- Infection is also seen in case of bathing in  White Sea  
Assumption- (As per 1st premise, we can safely assume that the WHITE SEA water is Highly saline)
Conclusion - The only way to avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other  Sea waters  altogether. 
Flaw- Not all the sea waters are SALINE. 
Which of the following indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning?
A) It relies on evidence about a specific place to make a recommendation about an entire class of such places.  - Absolutely Correct 
B) It assumes that one possible cause of a condition is the only cause of that condition.  - The conclusion does not discusses about the different cause of a condition. Incorrect 
C) It assumes to be true what it sets out to prove. - Absolute incorrect
D) It makes a generalization based on one segment of the population. - very close but Incorrect 
E) It contradicts itself by proclaiming a condition to be not dangerous and then offering a recommendation to avoid that condition. - Straight Incorrect

blueseas · Answer

hi,

IMO B.

PREMISE: A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type of high-salinity sea water.
PREMISE:Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea" have contracted the infection in varying levels of severity

CONCLUSION:the only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether.
MEANS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID THE INFECTION IS TO AVOID SEA BATHING

It is also stated that: Although bathing in "The White Sea" does not always lead to a contraction of the infection===>but still the author is concluding that the only cause of infection is sea bathing.

Authors flawed assumption is exposure to certain type of sea water can be avoided....by ONLY avoiding sea bathing in any sea.
but there may be other possibility that people might get exposed to that sea water in cases  such as BOATING in sea .....
so author is actually assuming one of the possible cause to be the only cause.
hence B.

docdrizzeally · Answer

However Cicero, Option D points out that the only conlusion offeered in the argument is based on a fact of onlye children for which data is available while option B is weaker as the link to only cause is equally undiagnosed and loop not closed..i would say bad question because D makes me skip the right answer likely B (:D thru no flaw of D :X)

ramannanda9 · Answer

I would still prefer option B, as the conclusion says that  to completely avoid  x infection, therefore b directly attacks the conclusion by saying that it might not be the  only cause

nick28 · Answer

In my opinion answer would be A .

Here this paragraph is somehow forcing us to make the general assumption of real world that Sea water is highly saline and hence bathing in one would increase the probability of catching the infection, but this point is never reflected via the given information.

And by mentioning " avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether " , the author is somehow bringing that real world assumption into play without ever correctly indicating the same and making a recommendation about the entire class of such place. Thus the conclusion is flawed.

Please provide the OA and an official explanation if there is one.

Thanks.

mohnish104 · Answer

This question is not not as easy as it looks. You almost predetermine the answer by the end of the passage but when you start reading the answers, the only word that comes out is Whoa!!! IMO B.

PiyushK · Answer

Question stem says infection is linked to " a particular type of water  " and further evidences cites that 80% children reported infection from "White sea" in the end author is concluding that in order to avoid the infection one should avoid taking bath in 
 in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters  altogether .

How come author can put emphasis on other Sea waters  altogether  as fact (A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type of high-salinity sea water.") has linked this infection to a particular type of water.

What if I take bath in Indian ocean and do not get any such infection. Author has not provided any evidence based on world wide research.
How he can bolster his claim that one should avoid taking bath in  on other Sea waters  altogether   ?

Thus, I think option A is correct.

mayank760 · Answer

I too thought the answer would be A, after narrowing down between A & B. But after a closer inspection i believe "B" is a better answer.

The author does not generalize that the cause of the infection is "The white Sea"; he in fact says that "Bathing in the white sea will not ...... infection"

His last statement is just a precaution because he has instilled his belief in the fact that "only and only saline water" causes this condition.
This assumption of saline water is causing the fallacy and not the palce.

dheeraj24 · Answer

The argument says " the only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether".

Therefore to flaw the argument , choice B says "It assumes that one possible cause of a condition is the only cause of that condition."

please refer to the highlighted words, they are the connectors .

Kudos if you like the post

rukna · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION: 
The question stem asks us to find a flaw in reasoning. In this question the first step is to identify the conclusion and determine whether we can find a recognizable flaw. The arguments conclusion is that “the only way to avoid contracting the eye infection is to stay away from all the sea waters including “The White Sea”. The type of reasoning discussed in the passage is a cause and effect reasoning. The author is assuming that the cause for contracting eye infection is only bathing in sea waters; this is exactly the flaw in the argument. If we do the POE then it becomes really difficult to prove that an answer choice is incorrect. In such question we should be beware of answer choice that just discusses only a part of the argument or just state what the author is doing, but the answer is not telling us what the flaw is. To test whether a choice is incorrect we can try to change the argument so that it addresses the flaw mentioned in a choice. If the conclusion still remains flawed the answer choice is incorrect. However, it is much easier in this case to find out which answer choice is correct.

A. This choice is just telling what the author is doing to prove his/ her point.
B. Correct. This is the correct answer choice that states the flaw in the cause and effect reasoning.
C. The author is not assuming what he sets out to prove. As with answer choice (A) the argument does this but this is not a flaw in the reasoning.
D. As with (A) this choice is also just telling what the author is doing to prove his/ her point. Hence, this is not a flaw.
E. Same as other incorrect answer choices, this is not the flaw in the argument.

abrakadabra21 · Answer

I thought A, B, D all are flows in the reasoning.

A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type of high-salinity sea water. While not dangerous, these infections are painful and often unnoticeable, at least to those who contract them. Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea" have contracted the infection in varying levels of severity. Although bathing in "The White Sea" does not always lead to a contraction of the infection, the only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether.

Which of the following indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning?

A) It relies on evidence about a specific place to make a recommendation about an entire class of such places.

: author collects evidence from "the white sea" and make a generalised statement about all seas so this presents a flaw in this part of the sentence: he only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and  other Sea waters  altogether.

B) It assumes that one possible cause of a condition is the only cause of that condition.

This option point a flaw in this part of the senetence : 
 the only way to completely avoid  the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether.

D) It makes a generalization based on one segment of the population.

: Author has collected only evidence of "Over 80% of children ages 4-14 who bathed in a particular sea called "The White Sea" have contracted the infection in varying levels of severity" what about adult group, old age group. the only way to completely avoid the infection is to refrain from bathing in "The White Sea" and other Sea waters altogether. => this will fall apart then.

logicguru  pl weigh in :

buan15 · Answer

Kindly update the OA for this question...
I think B is the correct answer as the author is actually assuming one of the possible cause to be the only cause.
D is a close one too but its incorrect because the author is making generalization based on one segment of population, but it still does not explain the flaw...

rohit80042 · Answer

Could you please confirm the right answer choice for this question please

Bunuel · Answer

OA is B. OE is here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-certain-ey ... l#p1589341

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type

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

A certain eye infection has been linked to exposure to a certain type

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