Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doin

Question

Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doing so knocked snow on the sidewalk. This same snow melted and refroze, forming ice on which the plaintiff fell, breaking her hip. We argue that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff, because malice is intention to cause harm and the defendant intentionally removed the snow from his car and put it on the sidewalk, which, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time, would subsequently cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer’s argument?

(A) Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice’s sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal.

(B) Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous. So Bruce wanted to eat poison.

(C) Cheryl denigrated the wine. Cheryl’s sister had picked out the wine. So though she may not have realized it, Cheryl indirectly denigrated her sister.

(D) Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had lunch with an industrial spy.

(E) Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So Edwina sold a stolen car.

gmat2020trgt770 · Accepted Answer

Lawyer's Arguement : "Defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff"
Premise : "malice is intention to cause harm and the defendant intentionally removed the snow from his car and put it on the sidewalk, which, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time, would subsequently cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff."

Prethinking : 
Let action A1 represents removal the snow from car and put it on the sidewalk.
and action A2 represnts falling of plaintiff, breaking her hip.
As per the Lawyer's Arguement - A1 was intentional which led to some other conditions and unkowingly (by defendant) led to A2. Lawyer is saying that if defendant did A1 intentionally then the related action A2 (unkowingly) was also intentional. This is not logical and this is the flaw here.

Ques   - The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer’s argument? --- We need to find an option in which the doer's intentional action A1 led to another action A2 (unkowingly) and as becuase A1 was intentional so was A2.

Lets analyse the choices now - 
 (A) Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice’s sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal.  -  Wrong  becuase there is only one action.

(B) Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous. So Bruce wanted to eat poison.  -  Correct  as an intended action by the doer (to eat mincemeat pie) is related to other action (to eat poison) which he performed unknowingly.

(C) Cheryl denigrated the wine. Cheryl’s sister had picked out the wine. So though she may not have realized it, Cheryl indirectly denigrated her sister.  -  Wrong  because there is only one action by the doer - Cheryl. There is no other action which is being related to the first action or which is being concluded because the doer did first action.

(D) Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had lunch with an industrial spy.  -  Wrong  because there is only one action by the doer - Deon. There is no other action which is being related to the first action or which is being concluded because the doer did first action.

(E) Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So Edwina sold a stolen car.  -  Wrong  because both the actions done by Edwina was knowingly. She knowingly bought the car and knowingly resold the car.

GDT · Answer

How is the answer B
Can someone pls post a detailed soln.

pratikpokharkar · Answer

Hi,

As per argument, initial action led to final bad result hence overall motive was malicious or results contradict with intention of initial action.
 
Option A,C,D,E are either merely restating the facts again i.e. someone was industrial spy , Edwina sold a stolen car OR results were not with malicious intention i.e. Alice asked her sister to do what was illegal, Cheryl  indirectly  denigrated her sister.

whereas Option B says bruce wanted to eat something which was poisonous which lead to conclusion that he wanted to eat poison. Hence result is contradictory to initial intentions .
Hence B is correct.

Hope this helps. Critical reviews are welcome.

KG04 · Answer

Bunuel   GMATNinja  - Kindly help me understand why the answer is B and not C

mailson · Answer

I think that the key to find this answer is to simplify the argument: 
If Alice wants to do B not knowing that B causes C you can't say that Alice wants to do C
And the argument says that "malice is intention...".

The alternative (C) says that something was done indirectly, but, according to the argument, something was done not only indirectly but also maliciously. That is why it's wrong.

The only one that replicate the flaw is the option B.

ask1 · Answer

How do I approach such a 700+ level Parallel Reasoning question?
I used to think I was good at it, but reading the fine lines seem to be a challenge wherein every option looks close to each other.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  ask1 . You ask a fair question, so I will give a fair answer.  Practice official  GMAT™  CR questions that are categorized as Hard  to get better at answering such questions. Notice that the tag above reveals that this is an official LSAT question. These tend to be a bit different from their GMAT™ counterparts, both in terms of presentation and the type of nuanced or technical reasoning that is being tested. Sure, learn what you can from a high-quality question such as the one above, but take it with a grain of salt. This is not a GMAT™ question, plain and simple, and like produces like.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

ask1 · Answer

I strongly believe that Learning is agnostic of the source material one looks to learn approaches/concepts from and should not be stunted by difference in the sources. Especially when they are official sources and when many other students have referred to them and succeeded with great scores.

Now, Ive already, albeit humbly admitted that this question is beyond my comprehension. I would be grateful to know your approach towards this question.
P.S. Have nearly completed the CR OGs and am looking at additional official sources.

GMATNinja   mikemcgarry  Request you to kindly help me out in this regard with this LSAT question which Im having a trouble wrapping my head over in terms of drawing out the parallels in reasoning. Thank you in advance

AndrewN · Answer

I meant no offense in my original response, and although I agree with you that learning  in general  is agnostic of the source material, I would disagree that preparing for GMAT™ CR questions by using LSAT Logical Reasoning questions is immaterial. To be clear and concise, I have not seen a single official GMAT™ question that mimics the chain of reasoning of the one above. I therefore find the utility of working through such a question to be suboptimal for GMAT™ preparation. I am not alone in my informed opinion on the matter. (I have helped prepare students for either test since 2015.) See, for instance,  this thread .

However, in the interest of providing you something you may find useful in the way of analysis, I have tracked down threads on two separate forums (or fora, if you prefer) for your perusal:

1)  Manhattan Prep

2)  PowerScore

I hope you find what you are looking for.

- Andrew

ask1 · Answer

Looked at the threads rightaway Andrew. Think those explanations actually cleared up a few things for me.
The depth of the question was indeed out of the scope of GMAT, but it re-inforced me to not rush through a certain word or phrasing and thus ignore the intended effect at my own peril. This Qn helped me think again on my approach(es) to CR.

Extremely grateful for your revert on this.
Thanks again!

AndrewN · Answer

I have learned many such lessons the hard way. My goal in posting is always to assist members of the community, so my initial post was cautionary. Perhaps I came across as cavalier. In any case, I am glad you found the linked threads useful. You are right: reinforcing correct lines of reasoning in CR-style questions is helpful, even if the content of the question may not exactly match up with the test you may be preparing for. I just did not want others who might stumble across the thread to read an analysis I might post and get the idea that I was onboard with  substituting  official LSAT questions for GMAT™ questions. I appreciate the role of cross-training, whether it be in sports or test preparation—I even refer my GMAT™ clients to the ETS website from time to time for its GRE® Math review packet—but for the overwhelming majority of people, the best results come from a narrow focus. (We have all heard stories about obsessed sports figures, chess players, mathematicians, and so on.)

Good luck with your studies, wherever they may lead you.

- Andrew

03SrishtiAgrawal · Answer

Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doing so knocked snow on the sidewalk. This same snow melted and refroze, forming ice on which the plaintiff fell, breaking her hip. We argue that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff, because malice is intention to cause harm and the defendant intentionally removed the snow from his car and put it on the sidewalk,  which, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time, would subsequently cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer’s argument?

(A) Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice’s sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal.  incorrect

(B) Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous.  So Bruce wanted to eat poison.  here it is shown as Bruce knowingly ate the poisonous apple,even though he didnt ,so it has the same flaw. and it is the  answer  .

(C) Cheryl denigrated the wine. Cheryl’s sister had picked out the wine. So though she may not have realized it, Cheryl indirectly denigrated her sister .incorrect

(D) Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had lunch with an industrial spy. incorrect

(E) Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So Edwina sold a stolen car .incorrect

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.

Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doin

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

Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doin

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