Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think

Question

Competition Mode Question

Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think if you can feel pain, you do have some rights, particularly the right not to have pain inflicted on you.

Brandon: Animals like lions would kill me if they were hungry for food. That inflicts pain on me, all right!

Which of the following is the best criticism of Brandons response?

A. He assumes that because some animals kill humans, humans have a right to kill those animals.
B. He does not give specific examples to support his position.
C. He attacks Arthur rather than addressing the issue.
D. He takes an absolute position without allowing for exceptions.
E. He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights.

eakabuah · Answer

The  right answer is option D  in my view. His response that lions would kill him if they were hungry is indeed an absolute position that should have been considered as an exception. It is uncommon for animals such as lions to attack humans, especially for a lion to leave its habitat to attack a human being in his or her residence. Most animals do not hurt humans, hence his response did not consider an attack on humans as an exception, instead, he takes an absolute position based on that premise.

unraveled · Answer

Arthur talks about animal rights and supports it by giving his reasons. Brandon talks about the pain infliction without any 
reference to rights part off conversation.

A. He assumes that because some animals kill humans, humans have a right to kill those animals. – WRONG. Irrelevant to the discussion between the two. Also, if humans have killing rights than it may support Brandon though n claim is made by him in the argument.
B. He does not give specific examples to support his position. – WRONG. Again the example Brandon refers to is not what argument is about.
C. He attacks Arthur rather than addressing the issue. – WRONG. Brandon neither attacks nor addresses the issue at hand.
D. He takes an absolute position without allowing for exceptions. – WRONG. Similar to option C no position is taken by Brandon in the argument.
E. He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights. – CORRECT. Brandon diverts from the core of the argument and talks something else that is not regarding the animal rights.

Answer (E).

Raxit85 · Answer

Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think if you can feel pain, you do have some rights, particularly the right not to have pain inflicted on you.

Brandon: Animals like lions would kill me if they were hungry for food. That inflicts pain on me, all right!

Which of the following is the best criticism of Brandons response?

A. He assumes that because some animals kill humans, humans have a right to kill those animals. - This response can not criticize the logic of brandon. So, incorrect.
B. He does not give specific examples to support his position.- Irrelevant
C. He attacks Arthur rather than addressing the issue. - Irrelevant
D. He takes an absolute position without allowing for exceptions. - Correct 
E. He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights. - Irrelevant

madgmat2019 · Answer

Brandon: Animals like lions would kill me if they were hungry for food. That inflicts pain on me, all right!

Which of the following is the best criticism of Brandons response?

A.  He assumes that because some animals kill humans, humans have a right to kill those animals .....incorrect
B.  He does not give specific examples to support his position.  ....... incorrect
C.He attacks Arthur rather than addressing the issue..... he didnt attack 
D.He takes an absolute position without allowing for exceptions............PERFECT....
E. He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights ........incorrect...he didnt do that

OA: D

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  If animals have feelings, then they can feel pain, thus they have the right not to have pain inflicted on them.
  Some animals can inflict pain on humans.

CRITICISM  : he doesn't address the issue that animals have rights because they have feelings, 
but rather he talks about something else.

A. this is not discussed by  , out.
B. irrelevant to the argument;
C. false;
D. false;

Answer (E)

Archit3110 · Answer

IC of argument I think if you can feel pain, you do have some rights, particularly the right not to have pain inflicted on you.
and 
Animals like lions would kill me if they were hungry for food. That inflicts pain on me, all right!

of the given options IMO E weakens Brandon's conclusion ;He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights.

Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think if you can feel pain, you do have some rights, particularly the right not to have pain inflicted on you.

Brandon: Animals like lions would kill me if they were hungry for food. That inflicts pain on me, all right!

Which of the following is the best criticism of Brandons response?

A. He assumes that because some animals kill humans, humans have a right to kill those animals.
B. He does not give specific examples to support his position.
C. He attacks Arthur rather than addressing the issue.
D. He takes an absolute position without allowing for exceptions.
E. He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights.

vimas · Answer

I don't understand Why E is not the answer for this. IMO Brandon's statement is not at all relevant to the Arthur's statement.
Arthur point is that animals should have rights because they have feelings, whereas Brandon statement has no relevance to rights and feelings of the animals.

Infact E mentions this point clearly.

Can anywhere share the official explanation for this? I need to understand how this line of reasoning is wrong.

Posted from my mobile device

unraveled · Answer

OE is given above but there itself it is mentioned that D is incorrect so we better leave the question right now.

Though I personally feel that without bringing outside knowledge we can't make D correct.

yashjain800 · Answer

Hey - can anyone explain to me what do we exactly mean by "Absolute position"? Is it more on the lines of being hard lined in your stance?

IanStewart · Answer

You're completely right -- the OA to this question is incomprehensible. Arthur says if something can feel pain, it has some rights. Brandon says he can feel pain, so Brandon is really arguing that he should have some rights, if he is replying to Arthur's logic. His reply doesn't address Arthur's argument about an animal's rights at all, and E is the only reasonable answer. Still, it's obviously an absurd CR question, nothing like what you'd ever see on the GMAT.

Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think

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

Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think

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