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 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.
22 Jan 2020, 04:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
67% (01:44) correct
33%
(01:58)
wrong
based on 448
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Marianna: The problem of drunk driving has been somewhat ameliorated by public education and stricter laws. Additional measures are nevertheless needed. People still drive after drinking, and when they do, the probability is greatly increased that they will cause an accident involving death or serious injury.
David: I think you exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk. Actually, a driver who is in an automobile accident is slightly less likely to be seriously injured if drunk than if sober.
In responding to Marianna’s argument, David makes which one of the following errors of reasoning?
(A) He contradicts himself.
(B) He assumes what he is seeking to establish.
(C) He contradicts Marianna’s conclusion without giving any evidence for his point of view.
(D) He argues against a point that is not one that Marianna was making.
(E) He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself.
David: I think you exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk. Actually, a driver who is in an automobile accident is slightly less likely to be seriously injured if drunk than if sober.
In responding to Marianna’s argument, David makes which one of the following errors of reasoning?
(A) He contradicts himself.
(B) He assumes what he is seeking to establish.
(C) He contradicts Marianna’s conclusion without giving any evidence for his point of view.
(D) He argues against a point that is not one that Marianna was making.
(E) He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself.
BhishmaNaidu99
28 Jan 2020, 07:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Marianna claims that, Drink and drive increases the probability of accident involved in death or serious injury
David claims that, less likely to be seriously injured, if drunk than sober.
By reading the conclusions carefully ,The difference in two statements is, one talks about only accidents or injury to others while drunk and drive, and one talks about the injuries to driver itself.
A. He doesn't contradicts himself.
B. he didn't just assume as he gave a reason for his statement.
C. His conclusion is different from the marianna , so out.
D. CORRECT. They both are making two not related statements.
E. He didn't criticise the marianna.
David claims that, less likely to be seriously injured, if drunk than sober.
By reading the conclusions carefully ,The difference in two statements is, one talks about only accidents or injury to others while drunk and drive, and one talks about the injuries to driver itself.
A. He doesn't contradicts himself.
B. he didn't just assume as he gave a reason for his statement.
C. His conclusion is different from the marianna , so out.
D. CORRECT. They both are making two not related statements.
E. He didn't criticise the marianna.
28 Jan 2020, 07:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Marianna: The problem of drunk driving has been somewhat ameliorated by public education and stricter laws. Additional measures are nevertheless needed. People still drive after drinking, and when they do, the probability is greatly increased that they will cause an accident involving death or serious injury.
*CONCLUSION: Additional measure are needed.
*Why?: Because the probability is increased.
David: I think you exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk. Actually, a driver who is in an automobile accident is slightly less likely to be seriously injured if drunk than if sober.
*CONCLUSION: You (Mariana) exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk.
*Why?: Because the drunk driver is less likely (probability) to be seriously injured (severity).
-----------------
* COMMENT: Here we can clearly see that Mariana discussed the problem with regard to probability, and David discussed the same problem with slightly different aspect - probability of severity, which is not in line with Mariana's argument.
-----------------
*POE:
(A) He contradicts himself. -> NO, he did not.
(B) He assumes what he is seeking to establish. -> He did not make any additional assumption, he just repeated Mariana's argument
(C) He contradicts Marianna’s conclusion without giving any evidence for his point of view. -> He did not contradict Mariana's argument, he just stated that the argument is distorted.
(D) He argues against a point that is not one that Marianna was making. -> YES, Mariana looks at the probability while David approaches the argument with probability of severity.
(E) He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself. ->NO, He did not criticized Mariana
*CONCLUSION: Additional measure are needed.
*Why?: Because the probability is increased.
David: I think you exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk. Actually, a driver who is in an automobile accident is slightly less likely to be seriously injured if drunk than if sober.
*CONCLUSION: You (Mariana) exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk.
*Why?: Because the drunk driver is less likely (probability) to be seriously injured (severity).
-----------------
* COMMENT: Here we can clearly see that Mariana discussed the problem with regard to probability, and David discussed the same problem with slightly different aspect - probability of severity, which is not in line with Mariana's argument.
-----------------
*POE:
(A) He contradicts himself. -> NO, he did not.
(B) He assumes what he is seeking to establish. -> He did not make any additional assumption, he just repeated Mariana's argument
(C) He contradicts Marianna’s conclusion without giving any evidence for his point of view. -> He did not contradict Mariana's argument, he just stated that the argument is distorted.
(D) He argues against a point that is not one that Marianna was making. -> YES, Mariana looks at the probability while David approaches the argument with probability of severity.
(E) He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against the argument itself. ->NO, He did not criticized Mariana
