Inspector: The only fingerprints on the premises are those of the owne

Question

Inspector: The only fingerprints on the premises are those of the owner, Mr. Tannisch. Therefore, whoever now has his guest’s missing diamonds must have worn gloves.

Which one of the following exhibits a flaw in its reasoning most similar to that in the inspector’s reasoning?

(A) The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate.

(B) The second prototype did not perform as well in inclement weather as did the first prototype. Hence, the production of the second prototype might have deviated from the design followed for the first.

(C) Each of the swimmers at this meet more often loses than wins. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of them will win.

(D) All of Marjorie’s cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right.

(E) All of these tomato plants are twice as big as they were last year. So if we grow peas, they will probably be twice as big as last year’s peas.

Chitharanjan35 · Accepted Answer

The answer is A ,because in the question the officer comes directly to conclusion that someone else wearing gloves might have done the robbery even though there were finger prints of only owner available
Similarly in option A author comes to a conclusion that food they ate is not the cause of illness excluding the option that the very camp cafeteria food that entire staff ate could be the cause of illness(like officer excluding the option of owner could be the thief)

Remaining options doesn't contain flaw similar to the question

Thank you

Posted from my mobile device

sunny91 · Answer

hi, please explain how to approach the correct answer. I thought it's D, though not very sure to reason.

eabhgoy · Answer

In the question stem, we are told fingerprints belong to the owner hence robbery must have been done by a person wearing the gloves.
This implies that the reason/evidence presented in the first line cannot be held responsible and the line presents alternate evidence. There is no connection or a single thread of thought between the two halves.

Now we need to look for answer choices which follow the same pattern -> present one evidence and then present second evidence which tells us how the first piece of evidence is not valid.

A. The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate.
--> This presents a similar pattern. We are told they became ill and had food only from the cafeteria. In the second half, we are told that there has to be another reason as they couldn't have taken ill after having food from the cafeteria.

B. The second prototype did not perform as well in inclement weather as did the first prototype. Hence, the production of the second prototype might have deviated from the design followed for the first.
--> Not even close as evidence presented in first half and second half are well connected. Hence incorrect.

C. Each of the swimmers at this meet more often loses than wins. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of them will win.
--> Again the first half and second half are connected. Hence incorrect.

D. All of Marjorie’s cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right.
--> This one sounds illogical. If she has cavities on the left side, then she should chew from the right side and not the left side. Hence incorrect.

E. All of these tomato plants are twice as big as they were last year. So if we grow peas, they will probably be twice as big as last year’s peas.
--> Again the first half and second half are well connected. Hence incorrect.

manishcmu · Answer

The argument in the question assumes that Mr. Tannisch cannot be the culprit. Just because he is the owner does not mean that he could not have hidden it. We have to look for a similar argument that exonerates any individual or entity without giving any justification. Only A meets the criteria. It just ignores camp cafeteria as being the culprit.

RusskiyLev · Answer

This option is logical because she damaged the side which was exposed to more pressure. She was not using the right side of her mouth when chewing, thus, had lower number of cavities there.

Pietrus95 · Answer

The way I reasoned is quite simple, though it could be that it is not the best.

The inspector, if you think about it, concludes something that is totally the opposite of what one would say. If I find fingerprints of a person, it is very likely that this person is involved with the crime. 
But he doesn't even take into consideration this fact.

Looking at the answers, the only two that seem plausible are the one you said, and A. 
However, your option is misleading because it is IN fact giving the most plausible conclusion which is not what we are looking for. There is no real flaw in the option of the teeth problem, because if I eat with the left side of my mouth it is actually probable that I will find more cavities on that side. It would have been sort of correct if the option said "..then the conclusion is that the person is eating with the opposite side"..or something which you would not expect.

Thekingmaker · Answer

I made too much erroneous question lately maybe mt rerasoning powers have reached saturation i assume maybe some kudous might provide the propulsion required , coming to the question it presents about how the evidence provided support a current conclusion and leads us to think about an alternative the option that standed out was of course the first one jumping in your face..

KarishmaB · Answer

Inspector: The only fingerprints on the premises are those of the owner, Mr. Tannisch. Therefore, whoever now has his guest’s missing diamonds must have worn gloves.

Premises:  
Only owner's fingerprints are present.
  Conclusion:   The thief must have worn gloves (the owner is not the thief)

So the logic here ignore an obvious possible cause.

Now look at the logic of other choices:

(A) The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate.

Premises: Only cafe food was eaten by campers. 
Conclusion: Illness was not caused by food. 
Here also, an obvious possible cause is ignored.

(B) The second prototype did not perform as well in inclement weather as did the first prototype. Hence, the production of the second prototype might have deviated from the design followed for the first.

Premises: Second did not perform as first did.
Conclusion: Production of the second prototype deviated from the design followed for the first.

Just tells us that the two are different. No obvious cause ignored.

(C) Each of the swimmers at this meet more often loses than wins. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of them will win.

Premises: Each of the swimmers at this meet more often loses than wins.
Conclusion: It is unlikely that any of them will win.

It has a diff flaw. It is applying average to this instance.

(D) All of Marjorie’s cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right.

Irrelevant. We don't know whether it makes any sense at all. It certainly doesn't involve ignoring an obvious possible cause.

(E) All of these tomato plants are twice as big as they were last year. So if we grow peas, they will probably be twice as big as last year’s peas.

What we have observed for tomatoes, we will likely oberse for peas too. The flaw here is generalising based on a specific pattern observed, Incorrect.

Answer (D)

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.

Inspector: The only fingerprints on the premises are those of the owne

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

Inspector: The only fingerprints on the premises are those of the owne

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