Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to li

Question

Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to live was twisted into the false and sinister idea that “Money is the root of all evil.” To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.

The author’s argument is logically flawed in that it

(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money

(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money

(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy

(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil

(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance

arvind910619 · Answer

A tough question
IMO A

Let us analyse all the option.

This is weaken question so we have to weaken the conclusion or the premises leading to the conclusion.

Basically the argument says that  " the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives."

Notice this above statement in blue. It says that proper use of money is provides us sustenance and not any other use.
Money can be used for other means as well. So of which may not be good and may lead to evil things such as terrorist funding. Now coming back to the argument we can say that we have to find that option that use the reasoning above.

A Bingo A weakens the argument head on. It says that the argument gives us example of proper use of money but the proper usage of money does not under mine the the argument.

B The examples are appropriate but this choice is tangential. Drop it.

C No tie to the conclusion as the phrase ''Money is the root of all evil" clearly shows that money is the reason for all evil. Drop it.

D Also it does but it does not impact the argument. Use of "some" is troublesome in that 1 out of 100 use improper means or 99 out of 100 use improper means. So this may not always lead to the same outcome. Drop it

E It is indeed true. It can be used to save wildlife and to save people from hunger. But this also does not weaken the argument. As this is outside information and we assuming many premises to arrive at this option, so drop it.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money

Correct. The author claims that the generalisation was twisted into a false and sinister idea but does not provide any basis to refute that the idea isn't indeed false or sinister.

(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money

Irrelevant. We are not concerned with examples imo. The main point is that money can be used for "sustenance". Eliminated

(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy

This would only support the claim made by the author and not indicate any flaw in the reasoning of author. Eliminated

(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil

Close contender. But again, we are not concerned with examples but more with the idea that money can lead to things which we need for sustaining ourselves. Eliminated

(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance

The argument is that the good rule got turned into a false and sinister idea. The argument can't be flawed because it failed to recognise more good things. It wouldn't have helped to counter why the good rule is NOT a false a sinister idea. Eliminated.

peace31 · Answer

Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to live was twisted into the false and sinister idea that “Money is the root of all evil.” To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.

The author’s argument is logically flawed in that it

(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money

(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money

(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy

(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil

(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance

For all those who are still wondering why Option A is wrong, here is the explanation:

This is a flaw question so you have to be diligent about the concept/architecture of the question more than the intended message. 
Passage is trying to refute the line "money is the root of all evil". The ideal way to refute is by stating how money is not the root of all evil. Instead, it is going to the polar opposite and saying that money does good things like food, shelter, etc.
Not addressing the problem and stating the polar opposite is the fallacy here.

Hence  Option A  covers this flaw beautifully.

deepverma · Answer

Conclusion:   a perfectly good rule (by which to live) was twisted into the false and sinister idea that “Money is the root of all evil.”
 Premise:  To the contrary, the proper use of money provides us with the food, clothes, health care, and shelter that we all need to sustain our lives.

Prethink:  Weak premise can be a flaw: Here Premise is supporting the gud rule but no reasoning provided for refuting Why money is not root of any evil.
The author’s argument is logically  flawed  in that it

(A) uses examples that do not refute the generalization that all evil is rooted in money  --->Correct , inline with prethink

(B) uses inappropriate examples to demonstrate the proper use of money -->Example were appropriate but not all inclusive

(C) ignores some of the evil things that money can buy

(D) fails to acknowledge that food, clothes, health care, and shelter can sometimes lead to evil -->

(E) fails to recognize that money can be used for a lot of other good things besides sustenance

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.

Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to li

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

Somewhere, somehow, what was once a perfectly good rule by which to li

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