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 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 2212:30 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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
03 Oct 2020, 02:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
55% (02:26) correct
45%
(02:30)
wrong
based on 543
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The trees always blossom in May if April rainfall exceeds 5 centimeters. If April rainfall exceeds 5 centimeters, then the reservoirs are always full on May 1. The reservoirs were not full this May 1 and thus the trees will not blossom this May.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above?
(A) If the garlic is in the pantry, then it is still fresh. And the potatoes are on the basement stairs if the garlic is in the pantry. The potatoes are not on the basement stairs, so the garlic is not still fresh.
(B) The jar reaches optimal temperature if it is held over the burner for 2 minutes. The contents of the jar liquefy immediately if the jar is at optimal temperature. The jar was held over the burner for 2 minutes, so the contents of the jar must have liquefied immediately.
(C) A book is classified “special” if it is more than 200 years old. If a book was set with wooden type, then it is more than 200 years old. This book is not classified “special,” so it is not printed with wooden type.
(D) The mower will operate only if the engine is not flooded. The engine is flooded if the foot pedal is depressed. The foot pedal is not depressed, so the mower will operate.
(E) If the kiln is too hot, then the plates will crack. If the plates crack, then the artisan must redo the order. The artisan need not redo the order. Thus, the kiln was not too hot.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above?
(A) If the garlic is in the pantry, then it is still fresh. And the potatoes are on the basement stairs if the garlic is in the pantry. The potatoes are not on the basement stairs, so the garlic is not still fresh.
(B) The jar reaches optimal temperature if it is held over the burner for 2 minutes. The contents of the jar liquefy immediately if the jar is at optimal temperature. The jar was held over the burner for 2 minutes, so the contents of the jar must have liquefied immediately.
(C) A book is classified “special” if it is more than 200 years old. If a book was set with wooden type, then it is more than 200 years old. This book is not classified “special,” so it is not printed with wooden type.
(D) The mower will operate only if the engine is not flooded. The engine is flooded if the foot pedal is depressed. The foot pedal is not depressed, so the mower will operate.
(E) If the kiln is too hot, then the plates will crack. If the plates crack, then the artisan must redo the order. The artisan need not redo the order. Thus, the kiln was not too hot.
03 Oct 2020, 20:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) Parallel Reasoning (Logical Flaw)
When a Parallel Reasoning argument contains Formal
Logic, translating the stimulus algebraically will make
it much easier to compare to the answer choices.
Translating the first two sentences of the stimulus, we
learn that one trigger (April rainfall in excess of 5
centimeters—we’ll call this “X”) causes two necessary
results: the trees will blossom in May (we’ll call this
“Y”), and the reservoirs will be full on May 1 (we’ll call
this “Z”). So in our formal logic notation, we can write
“If X → Y” and “If X → Z.” Our last sentence tells us
that since our reservoirs aren’t full (in other words, “no
Z”), the trees will not blossom (in other words, “no Y”).
So our final formal logic statement would be “No Z, so
no Y.” The absence of one result does not guarantee
the absence of the other, so here is the flaw that we’re
looking for in the answer choices. Armed with our
algebraic notation, we can more easily find a match.
(A) The first two sentences of (A) give us two
necessary results following from the same trigger—
just like the stimulus. Let “garlic in the pantry” equal
“X,” “garlic still fresh” equal “Y,” and “potatoes on the
basement stairs” equal “Z.” Then we have “If X → Y”
and “If X → Z.” Our last sentence says that the
potatoes are not on the stairs (“no Z”), so the garlic
isn’t fresh (“no Y”). Perfect match. We don’t even have
to read any other answer choices because we just
matched the entire stimulus point by point.
For the record:
(B) actually connects statements correctly. Connecting
the first two sentences, we learn that if the jar is held
over the burner for more than 2 minutes (“X”), it will
reach optimal temperature (“Y”), which will in turn
cause its contents to liquefy (“Z”). The conclusion of
(B) makes a sound deduction based on the connection
of these statements. In our algebraic notation, this
argument would have read as follows: “If X → Y; if Y →
Z; X occurred, so Z occurred.” This is correct
reasoning. Eliminate.
(C) Again, let’s do some algebraic substitution. We’ll
let “book set with wooden type” equal “X,” “book more
than 200 years old” equal “Y,” and “book classified as
special” equal “Z.” In that case, the argument reads:
“If Y → Z; if X → Y; no Z, so no X.” If we contrapose
the initial statements in this argument, we’ll see that it
uses correct reasoning also. Eliminate.
(D) Abstracting the terms of this argument gives us “If
X → no Y” (mower operating = “X” and engine flooded
= “Y”), then “If Z → Y” (foot pedal depressed = “Z”).
But the conclusion becomes “no Z, so X.” We can’t
contrapose any statement to find out what happens if
there’s “no Z,” so the logic is certainly flawed here. It
just isn’t flawed in the same way as that of the
stimulus. Eliminate.
(E) follows exactly the same logically sound structure
as (C), just in a slightly different order: “If X → Y; if Y
→ Z; no Z, so no X.” Eliminate.
(A) Parallel Reasoning (Logical Flaw)
When a Parallel Reasoning argument contains Formal
Logic, translating the stimulus algebraically will make
it much easier to compare to the answer choices.
Translating the first two sentences of the stimulus, we
learn that one trigger (April rainfall in excess of 5
centimeters—we’ll call this “X”) causes two necessary
results: the trees will blossom in May (we’ll call this
“Y”), and the reservoirs will be full on May 1 (we’ll call
this “Z”). So in our formal logic notation, we can write
“If X → Y” and “If X → Z.” Our last sentence tells us
that since our reservoirs aren’t full (in other words, “no
Z”), the trees will not blossom (in other words, “no Y”).
So our final formal logic statement would be “No Z, so
no Y.” The absence of one result does not guarantee
the absence of the other, so here is the flaw that we’re
looking for in the answer choices. Armed with our
algebraic notation, we can more easily find a match.
(A) The first two sentences of (A) give us two
necessary results following from the same trigger—
just like the stimulus. Let “garlic in the pantry” equal
“X,” “garlic still fresh” equal “Y,” and “potatoes on the
basement stairs” equal “Z.” Then we have “If X → Y”
and “If X → Z.” Our last sentence says that the
potatoes are not on the stairs (“no Z”), so the garlic
isn’t fresh (“no Y”). Perfect match. We don’t even have
to read any other answer choices because we just
matched the entire stimulus point by point.
For the record:
(B) actually connects statements correctly. Connecting
the first two sentences, we learn that if the jar is held
over the burner for more than 2 minutes (“X”), it will
reach optimal temperature (“Y”), which will in turn
cause its contents to liquefy (“Z”). The conclusion of
(B) makes a sound deduction based on the connection
of these statements. In our algebraic notation, this
argument would have read as follows: “If X → Y; if Y →
Z; X occurred, so Z occurred.” This is correct
reasoning. Eliminate.
(C) Again, let’s do some algebraic substitution. We’ll
let “book set with wooden type” equal “X,” “book more
than 200 years old” equal “Y,” and “book classified as
special” equal “Z.” In that case, the argument reads:
“If Y → Z; if X → Y; no Z, so no X.” If we contrapose
the initial statements in this argument, we’ll see that it
uses correct reasoning also. Eliminate.
(D) Abstracting the terms of this argument gives us “If
X → no Y” (mower operating = “X” and engine flooded
= “Y”), then “If Z → Y” (foot pedal depressed = “Z”).
But the conclusion becomes “no Z, so X.” We can’t
contrapose any statement to find out what happens if
there’s “no Z,” so the logic is certainly flawed here. It
just isn’t flawed in the same way as that of the
stimulus. Eliminate.
(E) follows exactly the same logically sound structure
as (C), just in a slightly different order: “If X → Y; if Y
→ Z; no Z, so no X.” Eliminate.
General Discussion
04 Oct 2020, 18:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
If A then B
If A then C
If not C and thus –B
In Short , If A then B , If A then C . But No C no B
Quote:
Quote:
If a then B
If A then C
If no C then no B
CORRECT
Quote:
If A then B
If C then D
If E then C
Quote:
If A then B
If C then A
If –B then –C
Quote:
If A then B
If C then –B
If B then A
Quote:
If A then B
If B then C
If –C then -A
