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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
17 Jun 2017, 05:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
51% (02:07) correct
49%
(02:07)
wrong
based on 514
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
If the purpose of laws is to contribute to people's happiness, we have a basis for criticizing existing laws as well as proposing new laws. Hence, if that is not the purpose, then we have no basis for the evaluation of existing laws, from which we must conclude that existing laws acquire legitimacy simply because they are the laws.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a sufficient condition for a state of affairs to be a necessary condition for it
(B) infers a causal relationship from the mere presence of a correlation
(C) trades on the use of a term in one sense in a premise and in a different sense in the conclusion
(D) draws a conclusion about how the world actually is on the basis of claims about how it should be
(E) infers that because a set of things has a certain property, each member of that set has the property
Source: LSAT
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) takes a sufficient condition for a state of affairs to be a necessary condition for it
(B) infers a causal relationship from the mere presence of a correlation
(C) trades on the use of a term in one sense in a premise and in a different sense in the conclusion
(D) draws a conclusion about how the world actually is on the basis of claims about how it should be
(E) infers that because a set of things has a certain property, each member of that set has the property
Source: LSAT
18 Jun 2017, 05:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
ganand
If you are clear with implications of ...
IF A , THEN B... then answer is right there
The para argument is ..
If A then B. If not A, then not B.
However, what does " if A then B.... MEANS if not B then not A
So B can happen without A too and A is just ONE reason and not the ONLY..
Choice A gives this very flaw ..
Ans A
17 Oct 2020, 23:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Author seems to make what the PoweScore guide likes to call a “mistaken negation.”
IF —-the purpose of the laws are to make people happy
THEN—— necessarily, we have a reason to criticize the laws
The author uses this Premise-Fact, and then makes his argument.
Think of it like this:
If it is known that the purpose of laws are to make ppl happy (Sufficient Condition)
Then automatically we know that we have a basis to criticize laws (Necessary Condition)
It’s like if the Sufficient Condition is “hit” ————-> then we for sure know the Necessary Condition occurs
The “contrapositive” must also be true.
Since every time we “hit” the Sufficient condition and it occurs——-> we know the necessary condition MUST occur
If the necessary has NOT occurred——->. Then there is no way the Sufficient occurred
This is the flaw the author makes.
What this does NOT tells us is what happens if the Sufficient Condition is NOT “hit”
We are only told about the case where the purpose of the laws IS to make people happy.
We do NOT know anything about the case where the purpose of the laws is NOT to make people happy
It could be that in such a case we have a basis to criticize laws OR it could be that we do NOT have a basis. We just don’t know.
So by making his argument, the author is confusing the Sufficient Condition with a Necessary Condition.
Posted from my mobile device
IF —-the purpose of the laws are to make people happy
THEN—— necessarily, we have a reason to criticize the laws
The author uses this Premise-Fact, and then makes his argument.
Think of it like this:
If it is known that the purpose of laws are to make ppl happy (Sufficient Condition)
Then automatically we know that we have a basis to criticize laws (Necessary Condition)
It’s like if the Sufficient Condition is “hit” ————-> then we for sure know the Necessary Condition occurs
The “contrapositive” must also be true.
Since every time we “hit” the Sufficient condition and it occurs——-> we know the necessary condition MUST occur
If the necessary has NOT occurred——->. Then there is no way the Sufficient occurred
This is the flaw the author makes.
What this does NOT tells us is what happens if the Sufficient Condition is NOT “hit”
We are only told about the case where the purpose of the laws IS to make people happy.
We do NOT know anything about the case where the purpose of the laws is NOT to make people happy
It could be that in such a case we have a basis to criticize laws OR it could be that we do NOT have a basis. We just don’t know.
So by making his argument, the author is confusing the Sufficient Condition with a Necessary Condition.
Posted from my mobile device
