Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinio

Question

Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinion the used car John is considering is in good mechanical condition. However, it is clear that Sarah cannot be trusted to give an honest opinion, since when Emmett asked her opinion of his new haircut she lied and said she thought it looked good. Therefore, it is very likely that Sarah also lied in giving her opinion of the mechanical condition of that car.

The argument is flawed by virtue of having committed which one of the following errors of reasoning?

(A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person.
(B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the future
(C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevant
(D) It presents evidence in value-laden terms that presuppose the conclusion for which that evidence is being offered.
(E) It wrongly assumes that because someone is a competent judge of one kind of thing, that person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing.

pqhai · Accepted Answer

This question follows a classical style of CR: using "similar" but irrelevant reasoning. ANALYZE THE STIMULUS: Fact: Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinion the used car John is considering is in good mechanical condition. Fact: when Emmett asked her opinion of his new haircut Sarah lied and said she thought it looked good. Sub-conclusion: it is clear that Sarah cannot be trusted to give an honest opinion Main conclusion: it is very likely that Sarah also lied in giving her opinion of the mechanical condition of that car. Question: The argument is flawed by virtue of having committed which one of the following errors of reasoning? Pre-thinking: is "opinion of car " relevant to "opinion of hair " :?:

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER: (A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person. Wrong. Out of scope. The MAIN conclusion just says Sarah's opinion about the car is not true. The MAIN conclusion does not attack Sarah's character. (B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the future Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about past vs. future. (C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevant Correct. Clearly, the opinion about hair is NOT relevant to opinion about car. Hair and car are not in the same category. You can't use an apple to replace an orange. Evidences must be in the same category to make the comparison valid. (D) It presents evidence in value-laden terms that presuppose the conclusion for which that evidence is being offered. Wrong . Out of scope. The evidence used in the argument does not presuppose the conclusion. D talks about circular reasoning, but it's NOT the case here. (E) It wrongly assumes that because someone is a competent judge of one kind of thing, that person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing. Wrong. SHELL game. E is a reverse answer . The logic of the argument is: A is NOT a competent judge of X ==> A is NOT a competent judge of Y either. But the logic of E is: A is a competent judge of X ==> A is a competent judge of Y. Clearly, E is a reverse version of the argument. Hence, E is wrong. Hope it helps.

surbhi87 · Answer

C it is !

Conclusion: Sarah cannot be trusted to give an honest opinion

Support1: Sarah said John's car is in good mechanical condition.
Support2: Lied about Emmet's haircut
Support3: May have also lied about the car . Therefore, the conclusion.

(A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person. 
Incorrect. It DOES offer grounds for attack (lied about Emmet's haircut)

(B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the future.
Incorrect. There's no support based on time frame.

(C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevant
Correct. The claim (that she's lying about the car since she lied about the haircut) is based on the irrelevant incident(haircut). No relation or linkage whatsoever between car condition and haircut likeability has been mentioned.

(D) It presents evidence in value-laden terms that presuppose the conclusion for which that evidence is being offered.
Incorrect. there is NO "pre-supposition" for the conclusion in the evidence given (support statements)

(E) It wrongly assumes that because someone is a competent judge of one kind of thing, that person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing.
Incorrect. No support about her being a competent judge of any thing.

Thekingmaker · Answer

It wasn't such an easy pick though there would be a truckload of explanation for other options but i am gonna concentrate only between C and E .E says that if onr is good at something they cannot be good at something else , however here Sarah was a good judge about about haircut also she recognised a good one from a bad one she lied just to make her friend feel satisfied there this optic says that based ona previous test case scenario a generalised claim is taken just correct you cannot mix expertise in mechanics and hair-cut together thus IMO C

7833Bhanu · Answer

Hey Folks, 
I can see a whole lot of opinions being generated in between the answer choices i.e E and C, without any clear logic. 
Putting my few cents onto this question, TBH even I was stuck between answer choice E and C and I was about to choose answer choice E over C. 
but when I closely analyzed the answer choice again I realized that the data points in the passage are explicitly talking about the fact that sarah lied for haircut, therefore she can lie about mechanical condition of car. but in the answer choice E the conversation is that sarah is not a competent judge of haircut but can be a competent judge of car's condition. 
Here being a competent judge is kept on a same pedestal as lying and this per the data point is not correct.
Based on this we can conclude that answer choice E is basically a  Trap answer choice  which is forcing us to bring outside world knowledge into solving this question. 
Hence Ans E can be eliminated, thus answer C is correct

Aim4gmat2024 · Answer

Opinion on a hairstyle is a very different thing compared to opinion about a mechanic. One has more of a personal taste and opinion, and opinion about a mechanic is more from a background of well known facts

Two different things cant be compared , and thus C is the answer

(Note: Her opinion on hairstyle is being criticised and thus not seen as a expert advice. Both the opinions are value loaded opinions and arent facts. Thus option E and D are wrong)

Chadwik · Answer

(A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person.
→ No — the argument does offer grounds: her lie about the haircut.

(B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the future.
→ No — both claims (about the haircut and the car) are about past or current opinions, not future events.

(C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevant.
✅ Correct.
This hits the flaw exactly:

It generalizes from one socially motivated lie (about appearance) to assume dishonesty in a completely unrelated professional context (car mechanics).

That’s a sweeping claim based on a weak and irrelevant example.

(D) It presents evidence in value-laden terms that presuppose the conclusion for which that evidence is being offered.
→ This describes a circular reasoning or begging the question flaw — not present here.

(E) It wrongly assumes that because someone is a competent judge of one kind of thing, that person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing.
→ That would apply if the argument were claiming she’s good at judging cars because she judged haircuts well — but here it’s the opposite: it’s dismissing her car judgment due to her hair comment. So not the flaw.

Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinio

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

Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinio

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