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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 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.
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 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.
14 Oct 2019, 15:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
50% (02:17) correct
50%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 407
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The view that every person is concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest implies that government by consent is impossible. Thus, social theorists who believe that people are concerned only with their self‐interest evidently believe that aspiring to democracy is futile, since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) infers merely from the fact of someone’s holding a belief that he or she believes an implication of that belief
(B) infers that because something is true of a group of people, it is true of each individual member of the group
(C) infers that because something is true of each individual person belonging to a group, it is true of the group as a whole
(D) attempts to discredit a theory by discrediting those who espouse that theory
(E) fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) infers merely from the fact of someone’s holding a belief that he or she believes an implication of that belief
(B) infers that because something is true of a group of people, it is true of each individual member of the group
(C) infers that because something is true of each individual person belonging to a group, it is true of the group as a whole
(D) attempts to discredit a theory by discrediting those who espouse that theory
(E) fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true
28 Oct 2019, 00:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
My reasoning
Process of elimination
The view that every person is concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest implies that government by consent is impossible. Thus, social theorists who believe that people are concerned only with their self‐interest evidently believe that aspiring to democracy is futile, since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) infers merely from the fact of someone’s holding a belief that he or she believes an implication of that belief ...(exactly what we need , this explains the flaw that someones's belief = implication of that belief )
(B) infers that because something is true of a group of people, it is true of each individual member of the group ( nothing mentioned abt groups )
(C) infers that because something is true of each individual person belonging to a group, it is true of the group as a whole ( same as B )
(D) attempts to discredit a theory by discrediting those who espouse that theory ( not explaining the flaw )
(E) fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true ( out of scope )
Process of elimination
The view that every person is concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest implies that government by consent is impossible. Thus, social theorists who believe that people are concerned only with their self‐interest evidently believe that aspiring to democracy is futile, since democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
(A) infers merely from the fact of someone’s holding a belief that he or she believes an implication of that belief ...(exactly what we need , this explains the flaw that someones's belief = implication of that belief )
(B) infers that because something is true of a group of people, it is true of each individual member of the group ( nothing mentioned abt groups )
(C) infers that because something is true of each individual person belonging to a group, it is true of the group as a whole ( same as B )
(D) attempts to discredit a theory by discrediting those who espouse that theory ( not explaining the flaw )
(E) fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true ( out of scope )
