Spiritualism, the doctrine that it is possible to communicate with the

Question

Spiritualism, the doctrine that it is possible to communicate with the spirits of the deceased through specially talented persons called mediums, is fraudulent. As long ago as the J 870's, Professor Edwin Lankester showed that the purported "spirit writing" of the famed medium Henry Slade was present on a slate before the "spirits" were supposed to have begun writing on it. This example demonstrates that the doctrine of spiritualism is worthless.

If the example above is correctly reported, which of the following is the best argument against the conclusion drawn above?

If the example above is correctly reported, which of the following is the best argument against the conclusion drawn above?

(A) There cannot be proof that the spirits of the deceased do not exist. 
(B) The conclusion depends on a historical report, and such reports of past events do not recount all of the circumstances. 
(C) The cited evidence presupposes what is to be proved. 
(D) A single instance of fraud cannot show that the doctrine is false in general. 
(E) The correctness of the report depends on the veracity of antispiritualists, who may be expected to be biased.

ahabib · Answer

Breakdown the argument:

One bad apple   ruins the batch

Prethinking:  Generalizing is bad

(A) There cannot be proof that the spirits of the deceased do not exist. 
 Out of scope..  This does nothing for us. We're no better off than we first were.
 
 (B) The conclusion depends on a historical report, and such reports of past events do not recount all of the circumstances.  
 Irrelevant.. 
Why do we HAVE to recount every single circumstances?

(C) The cited evidence presupposes what is to be proved.  
 No sign of a presupposition in the argument..

(D) A single instance of fraud cannot show that the doctrine is false in general.  
 Aligns with what's being argued..Good.

(E) The correctness of the report depends on the veracity of antispiritualists, who may be expected to be biased.  
 Irrelevant..  This is outside the scope of our passage..

amarsinha · Answer

The premise is that author is quoting one fraud incident and based upon that he is making a rule that doctrine is worthless.

A - This is not relevant. Just because there is no proof that spirits do not exist doesn't exactly contradicts the conclusion. 
B - This is not hitting on how the conclusion was made by author. 
C - This cannot be said. Author is quoting one incident of fraud which is true. This evidence is correct and proves that in that case it was fraud, but it cannot be generalized. 
D - This looks good. You cannot give a judgement based upon a single instance. May be in 99% of the cases it is the other way. 
E - This is again coming out of the scope of the premise. The report may have come from antispiritualists. But the point is that this is one off case and you cannot give a judgement basis this.

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.

Spiritualism, the doctrine that it is possible to communicate with the

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Spiritualism, the doctrine that it is possible to communicate with the

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