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 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 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 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.
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
38% (01:52) correct
62%
(01:50)
wrong
based on 868
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows into Hillview from the east. Therefore, on some days when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
A. mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog
B. fails to recognize that one set might have some members in common with each of two others even though those
two other sets have no members in common with each other
C. uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
D. contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true
E. infers a particular causal relation from a correlation that could be explained in a variety of other ways
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
A. mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a condition that necessarily accompanies unsafe levels of smog
B. fails to recognize that one set might have some members in common with each of two others even though those
two other sets have no members in common with each other
C. uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion
D. contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true
E. infers a particular causal relation from a correlation that could be explained in a variety of other ways
25 Apr 2021, 05:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
techiesam
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The premises of the argument contain a Formal Logic setup:
HD = hot days in Hillview
SUL = smog reaches unsafe levels
WBE = wind blows in from the east
The combination of two “some” statements does not yield any inferences. Yet, the author draws a conclusion (SUL <-S-> WBE ) on the basis of the relationship and you must identify the answer that explains why this conclusion is incorrect.
Answer choice (A): There is no proof in the argument that the condition of WBE sometimes accompanies smog reaching unsafe levels—that is the mistake made by the author. The answer would be more attractive if it read as follows:
- “mistakes a condition (WBE) that sometimes accompanies hot days in Hillview for a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog”
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. When two “some” statements are joined, no inference can be drawn because the group common to both may be large enough that the two sub-elements do not overlap. For example, let’s say there are 10 hot days in Hillview (HD), 1 day when the smog reaches unsafe levels (SUL), and 1 day when the wind blows in the east. Is it necessary that the 1 day when the smog reaches unsafe levels is the same day that the wind blows in from the east? No, but the argument concludes that is the case, and that error is described in this answer choice. For reference purposes, here is the answer choice with each abstract item identified in parentheses after the reference:
- “fails to recognize that one set (HD) might have some members in common with each of two others (SUL and WBE) even though those two other sets (SUL and WBE) have no members in common with each other”
Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes the Uncertain Use of a Term, but the argument is consistent in its use of “unsafe.” Therefore, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): Each premise is plausible regardless of the truth of the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): The argument does not feature causal reasoning. The conclusion clearly states that the two events happen together, but there is no attempt to say that one caused the other. If you chose this answer, try to identify the causal indicators in the argument—there are none.
Attachment:
2021-03-29_02-13-34.png [ 6.37 KiB | Viewed 9209 times ]
General Discussion
gmatexam439
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Posts: 1,054
14 Jun 2017, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
On some hot days the smog in Hillview reaches unsafe levels, and on some hot days the wind blows into Hillview
from the east. Therefore, on some days when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the smog in Hillview
reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
A. mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a condition that necessarily accompanies
unsafe levels of smog -Nowhere in the argument we are given that "wind" is either a necessary or unnecessary condition.
B. fails to recognize that one set might have some members in common with each of two others even though those
two other sets have no members in common with each other -CORRECT. There can be a certain third event causing both the given events.
C. uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion -Irrelevant
D. contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true -The premise is always taken as is. In a flaw question, ALWAYS the conclusion is flawed. The premise is NEVER taken to be flawed. If GMAT says that sun rises from the west, then we MUST assume that the sun rises from the west.
E. infers a particular causal relation from a correlation that could be explained in a variety of other ways -There is no correlation established between the two events. In-fact the correlation itself is incorrect.
from the east. Therefore, on some days when the wind blows into Hillview from the east, the smog in Hillview
reaches unsafe levels.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
A. mistakes a condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog for a condition that necessarily accompanies
unsafe levels of smog -Nowhere in the argument we are given that "wind" is either a necessary or unnecessary condition.
B. fails to recognize that one set might have some members in common with each of two others even though those
two other sets have no members in common with each other -CORRECT. There can be a certain third event causing both the given events.
C. uses the key term “unsafe” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion -Irrelevant
D. contains a premise that is implausible unless the conclusion is presumed to be true -The premise is always taken as is. In a flaw question, ALWAYS the conclusion is flawed. The premise is NEVER taken to be flawed. If GMAT says that sun rises from the west, then we MUST assume that the sun rises from the west.
E. infers a particular causal relation from a correlation that could be explained in a variety of other ways -There is no correlation established between the two events. In-fact the correlation itself is incorrect.
