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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
nightblade354
Expert
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 22 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,769
Given Kudos: 3,305
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Expert reply
05 Oct 2020, 05:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
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:
51% (02:09) correct
49%
(02:12)
wrong
based on 516
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Fish with specialized teeth for scraping algae occur in both Flower Lake and Blue Lake. Some biologists argue that because such specialized characteristics are rare, fish specifies that have them should be expected to be closely related. If they are closely related, then the algae-scraping specialization evolved only once. But genetic tests show that the two algae-scraping species, although possibly related, are not closely related. Thus, the algae-scraping specialization evolved more than once.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it:
(A) Infers a cause merely from a correlation
(B) Infers that just because the evidence for a particular claim has not yet been confirmed, that the claim is false
(C) Takes a sufficient condition as a necessary one
(D) Infers merely because something was likely to occur that it did occur
(E) Appeals to the authority of biologists who may not be representative of all biologists with expertise in the relevant area
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it:
(A) Infers a cause merely from a correlation
(B) Infers that just because the evidence for a particular claim has not yet been confirmed, that the claim is false
(C) Takes a sufficient condition as a necessary one
(D) Infers merely because something was likely to occur that it did occur
(E) Appeals to the authority of biologists who may not be representative of all biologists with expertise in the relevant area
08 Oct 2020, 06:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
C.
The argument basically states that:
if closely related ---> then evolved once
BUT, reality =>
Not closely related ---> therefore, evolved more than once (i.e. not once)
Its a case of mistaken negation.
(A) Infers a cause merely from a correlation
There is no causality here.
(B) Infers that just because the evidence for a particular claim has not yet been confirmed, that the claim is false
It in fact states that claim(evolved once) is false not because its not confirmed, but because an opposite or counter-evidence has been found.
(C) Takes a sufficient condition as a necessary one
Perfect. Sufficient = closely related. Necessary = Evolved once
(D) Infers merely because something was likely to occur that it did occur
Opposite. It "did not" occur in reality.
(E) Appeals to the authority of biologists who may not be representative of all biologists with expertise in the relevant area
No appeal to authority is done.
The argument basically states that:
if closely related ---> then evolved once
BUT, reality =>
Not closely related ---> therefore, evolved more than once (i.e. not once)
Its a case of mistaken negation.
(A) Infers a cause merely from a correlation
There is no causality here.
(B) Infers that just because the evidence for a particular claim has not yet been confirmed, that the claim is false
It in fact states that claim(evolved once) is false not because its not confirmed, but because an opposite or counter-evidence has been found.
(C) Takes a sufficient condition as a necessary one
Perfect. Sufficient = closely related. Necessary = Evolved once
(D) Infers merely because something was likely to occur that it did occur
Opposite. It "did not" occur in reality.
(E) Appeals to the authority of biologists who may not be representative of all biologists with expertise in the relevant area
No appeal to authority is done.
29 Oct 2020, 00:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
nightblade354
Sufficient condition is when A definitely lead to B, but does not mean that it is the only way to achieve B.
In summary, "If A then B does" not mean "If not A, then not B". (If C , then B can also be true).
Necessary condition is something which works as a prerequisite.
A have to be true for the B to occur. We know that A must have happened if B has happened. 'A' could one of many important factors to be true.
According to the question:
Premise : If A (closely related), then B (evolved once).
Premise 2: Not closely related or just related
Conclusion : If not A (not closely related), then not B (not evolved once or more than once).
Flaw: We are assuming A must take place for B to occur.
Which is what option C says.
