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.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
15 Apr 2017, 09:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
76% (00:57) correct
24%
(01:22)
wrong
based on 216
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The legalization of drugs is advocated by no less respectable people than William F. Buckley and federal judge Edmund J. Reinholt. These people would not propose a social policy that is likely to be harmful. So there is little risk in experimenting with a one-year legalization of drugs.
In presenting her position the author does which one of the following?
(A) Argues from the specific to the general.
(B) Attacks the motives of her opponents.
(C) Uses the positions of noted social commentators to support her position.
(D) Argues in a circular manner.
(E) Claims that her position is correct because others cannot disprove it.
In presenting her position the author does which one of the following?
(A) Argues from the specific to the general.
(B) Attacks the motives of her opponents.
(C) Uses the positions of noted social commentators to support her position.
(D) Argues in a circular manner.
(E) Claims that her position is correct because others cannot disprove it.
Source: Nova GMAT
Difficulty Level: 550
Difficulty Level: 550
16 Apr 2017, 04:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
let us simplify the argument --
1. Respectable people endorse legalization of drugs
2. these people would not propose a policy that would be harmful ---> little risk in experimenting with a 1 year legalization of drugs.
Note that we are drawing a conclusion -- "little risk in experimenting ..." -- based on the subjective opinions of respectable people. It is entirely possible that these people might not have accounted for all the risks associated with implementing such a measure. They might have supported the measure purely based on principle.
Let us take a look at the answer options --
Option A - Incorrect
No specific cases are mentioned that are then generalized. This would have been correct if specific cases such as the results of a study on a particular age group in a particular city was generalized to apply to all population.
Option B - Incorrect
"attacks the motives of her opponents" -- this is not done in the argument.
Option C - Correct
The conclusion is based on the positions of respectable people.
Option D - Incorrect
This does not use circular logic. In circular logic the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing.
for example -- "This argument says abortion should be legal because women have the right to an abortion." The premise (because women have the right ...) and the conclusion (abortion should be legal) mean the same thing.
If the argument said something like -- "there is little risk in legalizing drugs because legalizing drugs does not pose any threats/is completely safe" -- then this option would have been correct.
Option E - Incorrect
No mention of others "disproving" her position.
1. Respectable people endorse legalization of drugs
2. these people would not propose a policy that would be harmful ---> little risk in experimenting with a 1 year legalization of drugs.
Note that we are drawing a conclusion -- "little risk in experimenting ..." -- based on the subjective opinions of respectable people. It is entirely possible that these people might not have accounted for all the risks associated with implementing such a measure. They might have supported the measure purely based on principle.
Let us take a look at the answer options --
Option A - Incorrect
No specific cases are mentioned that are then generalized. This would have been correct if specific cases such as the results of a study on a particular age group in a particular city was generalized to apply to all population.
Option B - Incorrect
"attacks the motives of her opponents" -- this is not done in the argument.
Option C - Correct
The conclusion is based on the positions of respectable people.
Option D - Incorrect
This does not use circular logic. In circular logic the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing.
for example -- "This argument says abortion should be legal because women have the right to an abortion." The premise (because women have the right ...) and the conclusion (abortion should be legal) mean the same thing.
If the argument said something like -- "there is little risk in legalizing drugs because legalizing drugs does not pose any threats/is completely safe" -- then this option would have been correct.
Option E - Incorrect
No mention of others "disproving" her position.
03 Jun 2020, 18:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise #1: respectable people William F. Buckley and federal judge Edmund J
Premise #2: These respectable people will not advocate for any social policy that may be harmful
Conclusion: there is little risk in experimenting with a one-year legalization of drugs.
As you can see, the argument is centered on the opinion of these ''respectable'' people. The author uses their opinion to advocate for her conclusion. This is what we have in (C)
(C) Uses the positions of noted social commentators to support her position.
Hence, (C) is the right answer choice.
Premise #2: These respectable people will not advocate for any social policy that may be harmful
Conclusion: there is little risk in experimenting with a one-year legalization of drugs.
As you can see, the argument is centered on the opinion of these ''respectable'' people. The author uses their opinion to advocate for her conclusion. This is what we have in (C)
(C) Uses the positions of noted social commentators to support her position.
Hence, (C) is the right answer choice.
