Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept

Question

Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept the risks involved in quitting my job.

Morgenstern: The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. If you don't find one, you're going to be pretty unhappy. But you're already unhappy, so you might as well just quit.

Morgenstern's argument is flawed in that it

(A) fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity or significance

(B) relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true

(C) mischaracterizes what Brooks says

(D) conflates two different types of risk

(E) reaches a generalization on the basis of a single case

garcmillan · Answer

Following Nightblade354 advise to push my CR skills beyond the limits, I'll post an extensive analysis of this questions, explaining the initial thoughts on the stimulus and the reasons why I reject four options and choose one as the winner

. I beieve this is one of the best ways to improve in CR. Don't just do questions, but try to extract as much as possible from each of them. I think doing blind review help a lot in doing so (more about blind review here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightbla ... 95316.html) Here is the stimulus: Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept the risks involved in quitting my job. Morgenstern: The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. If you don't find one, you're going to be pretty unhappy. But you're already unhappy, so you might as well just quit. Initial thoughts : I see some problems in Morgenstern's argument: 1) no distinction between the unhappiness of quitting and the unhappiness of remaining in the current job (Brooks could be unhappier if he/she quited) 2) no other factors that can affect Brooks other than happiness (the financial part is very important for example, and Morgenstern is not considering it Let's go into the answers: (A) fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity or significance This option falls under my first initial thought. KEEP IT! (B) relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true The level of equivalence should be in the difference of happiness, not in the conclusion itself. INCORRECT (C) mischaracterizes what Brooks says It is not tackling Brooks's answer, but giving additional information. INCORRECT (D) conflates two different types of risk There is only one type of risk. Quitting the job, and if there was two different ones, you could still compare them as long as you understand the differences. INCORRECT (E) reaches a generalization on the basis of a single case No generalization as Morgenstern keeps talking about the specific case. INCORRECT OPTION A

warriortx · Answer

"Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept the risks involved in quitting my job.

Morgenstern: The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. If you don't find one, you're going to be pretty unhappy. But you're already unhappy, so you might as well just quit.

Morgenstern's argument is flawed in that it"

(A) fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity or significance
 Irrelevant. We do not know to what degree is Brooks unhappy at his current job. We ignore how unhappy (apart from "pretty") will Brooks become without a job. Therefore even if unhappiness varies, we cannot criticise Morgenstern.

(B) relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true
 Sounds good. Morgenstern's conclusion (that Brooks must leave his job) relies on the assumption that the risk of not finding another job is the only risk involved in quitting.

(C) mischaracterizes what Brooks says 
 Incorrect. He does not mischaracterise Brooks' words.

(D) conflates two different types of risk
 It does not combine two types of risk. It describes how "risk of not finding a new job" is a subset of "risks" and, from M's point of view, the only risk (i.e. both risks overlap perfectly).

(E) reaches a generalization on the basis of a single case 
 The argument does not generalize. M is only referring to Brooks' situation.

The correct answer IMO is  B .

ChuHoaiNam2505 · Answer

IMO C,

Brooks concerned about the risk of quitting job

But Morgenstern only talked about the unhappiness

So i think that Morgenstern mischaracterised what brooks said.

lynnglenda · Answer

Powerscore - Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

In this dialogue, Brooks says that he’s ambivalent about quitting his job, even though it makes him unhappy, because he’s not sure whether the risks associated with leaving his current position are justified by the move. Morgenstern says that the risk lies in the prospect of not finding another job, which would also make Brooks unhappy. Since Brooks is already unhappy, Morgenstern asserts, he should go ahead and quit:

The problem with Morgenstern’s argument is that not every type of unhappiness is created equal; being slightly unhappy in one’s job, for example, might be much, much better than being unhappy in one’s unemployment.

The stimulus is, as you might have predicted, followed by a Flaw in the Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice will describe the problem with Morgenstern’s questionable argument as discussed above.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Morgenstern equates two very different states of unhappiness, appearing to see no difference between being unhappy in a job and being “pretty unhappy” in unemployment.

Answer choice (B): This choice describes circular reasoning, the flawed argumentation that begins by presuming the conclusion to be true. Although Morgenstern’s reasoning is not circular, many test takers found this choice appealing. In a circular argument, the premise and conclusion are logically equivalent, and that is not the case here. Rather, Morgenstern thinks that both states of unhappiness discussed are equivalent.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes a “straw man” argument, in which someone deliberately mischaracterizes a point in order to more easily refute it. In this case, however, Morgenstern has not mischaracterized Brooks’ words, but instead has responded with a flawed argument.

Answer choice (D): Morgenstern has not conflated two different types of risk; only one risk is discussed. The issue here is that Morgenstern has equated two different types of unhappiness, drawing the questionable conclusion that there is no risk in quitting. In LSAT language, this might be referred to as “equivocation with respect to the central concept of unhappiness.”

Answer choice (E): The flaw in Morgenstern’s argument is not that he has drawn an unjustified generalization on the basis of a single case; rather, the flaw in the reasoning is that Morgenstern’s advice is based on a faulty presumption: that both types of unhappiness—that of having a job that is unsatisfactory, and that of being unable to find another job—are equivalent, and suggesting that there is not much risk involved in trading one for the other.

tinbq · Answer

Hi,

I think in this question, we can have many ways to interpret what can be the argument's flaws. My prethinking was actually different from given choices.
So let look at the choices and POE.

A. This can be true. What if Brooks would be unhappier unemployed than he is with the current job. -> Keep A
B. Morgenstern does not assume the conclusion is true, he makes reasoning. -> Eliminate B
C. Morgenstern understands Brooks' concern about the risk of quitting and M tries to encourage to quite as B could not be more upset. -> Eliminate C
D. There are not two types of risk in the argument, just one - the risk of having no job after job quit. -> Eliminate D
E. Morgenstern does not make any generalization in his argument -> Eliminate E

Only A is left -> OA

unraveled · Answer

Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept the risks involved in quitting my job.

Morgenstern: The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. If you don't find one, you're going to be pretty unhappy. But you're already unhappy, so you might as well just quit.

Morgenstern's argument is flawed in that it

(A) fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity or significance - CORRECT. The two unhappiness that B and M mention are different when considered in terms of degree/intensity.

(B) relies on an assumption that is tantamount to  assuming that the conclusion is true  - WRONG. No conclusion that B reaches.

(C)  mischaracterizes  what Brooks says - WRONG. The definition of unhappiness remain unchanged.

(D) conflates two  different types of risk  - WRONG. Got stuck in this one but A seems better.

(E)  reaches a generalization  on the basis of a single case - WRONG. There is no generalization as such but M just confuses the situation more.

Answer A.

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.

Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept

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

Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept

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