Professor: A person who can select a beverage from

Question

Professor: A person who can select a beverage from among 50 varieties of cola is less free than one who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk, and water. It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor.

The professor’s argument proceeds by

(A) supporting a general principle by means of an example
(B) drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of a general principle
(C) supporting its conclusion by means of an analogy
(D) claiming that whatever holds for each member of a group must hold for the whole group
(E) inferring one general principle from another, more general, principle

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

You're right that the second sentence is the conclusion. But what is that conclusion based on? The first sentence. And what is the first sentence? If it's an analogy, then answer choice (C) looks pretty good. But if it's an example, then answer choice (A) is the better answer.

So what's the difference between an example and an analogy? An example is looking at something and trying to draw some general information out of it. An analogy is a little more complicated. It requires two situations: one that you know about and one that you don't know about. An analogy compares the two situations to try to learn something about the situation you don't know about.

Here, the Professor is using the beverages as an example to try to learn some general information. There's no second situation that the beverages are being compared to, so there isn't an analogy.

Answer choice (A) is our best answer.

I hope that helps!

AnkitHRD · Answer

GMATNinja  could you please help me understand why C is wrong. Isn't part after - It is clear, then,..... is conclusion.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

(A) supporting a general principle by means of an example Correct answer.  General principle is that number of choices alone is insufficient to determine degree of freedom, the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor. The example is given in the first sentence.

(B) drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of a general principle  The general principle is supported using examples and not the other way around, as evidenced by the placement of the phrase "It is clear, then...". Eliminate.

(C) supporting its conclusion by means of an analogy  An analogy is a comparison between two examples to show similarities. That is not happening here. Eliminate.

(D) claiming that whatever holds for each member of a group must hold for the whole group  This is not the case in this passage, which does not refer to members of a group. Eliminate.

(E) inferring one general principle from another, more general, principle  There is only one general principle mentioned in the stimulus. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

yashhw · Answer

are we supporting a general principle here or drawing a principle based on an example? I believe both are very different since supporting would mean that principle is already stated and example is provided based on that. 
Could someone please help clarify?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  yashhw  let me try to help

Lets look at the argument how it is structures.

Professor: A person who can select a beverage from among 50 varieties of cola is less free than one who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk, and water. It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor.

It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor.- based on that 1 scenario professor concluded that someone's including Yash's freedom cannot measured by no. Of different type of same thing, we also require different type of things of same category. So he derived a principle and supported that with scenarion

The professor’s argument proceeds by

(A) supporting a general principle by means of an example- well keep it
(B) drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of a general principle- no he is not drawing conclusion on the basis of principle
(C) supporting its conclusion by means of an analogy- analogy is not there, just one scenario was there and principle derived
(D) claiming that whatever holds for each member of a group must hold for the whole group- nothing given like this
(E) inferring one general principle from another, more general, principle- only one principle is there so incorrect

Only option A matches with our understanding

Hope this helps

guddo · Answer

Professor: A person who can select a beverage from among 50 varieties of cola is less free than one who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk, and water. It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the number of alternatives available; the extent of the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor.
 
 The professor’s argument proceeds by

The argument’s structure is that  it uses one specific example about beverage choices to support a broader general principle about how meaningful freedom should be measured .

(A) supporting a general principle by means of an example

This is the best answer. The professor gives a particular example, 50 colas versus 5 very different drinks, and uses it to support the general claim that freedom depends not just on the number of options but also on how different the options are.

(B) drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of a general principle

This reverses the direction. The argument starts with a particular case and then draws a general conclusion.

(C) supporting its conclusion by means of an analogy

This is not really an analogy. The professor is not comparing one case to another separate case. He is using a direct example.

(D) claiming that whatever holds for each member of a group must hold for the whole group

Nothing like that happens here. There is no group-to-whole reasoning.

(E) inferring one general principle from another, more general, principle

The argument does not begin with one general principle and derive another. It moves from an example to a principle.

Answer: (A)

guddo · Answer

Yes, they are different. Here it is  supporting a general principle by means of an example .

Why: the argument’s  conclusion  is the general principle:
meaningful freedom cannot be measured only by number of choices; the differences among choices also matter.

The cola vs five different drinks case is the example used to support that conclusion.

So “supporting” here does not mean the principle must be stated first. It only means the example is evidence for a general claim. The order is:
example first -> general principle second.

That is why (A) is right.

egmat · Answer

Hi yashhw,

Great question! Your confusion is understandable, but let me clarify what 'supporting' means in this context.

You're thinking 'supporting a principle' means the principle must already exist independently, and the example merely reinforces it. But in  Critical Reasoning , 'supporting' simply means 'providing evidence for.' The example is the PREMISE, and the general principle is the CONCLUSION. The example's job is to make you believe the principle is true.

Look at the argument's structure:

Step 1 (Example/Premise):   50  colas gives less freedom than  5  diverse drinks.
 Step 2 (General Principle/Conclusion):  'It is clear, THEN, that meaningful freedom depends on differences among alternatives, not just the number.'

The phrase 'It is clear, then' tells you the principle is being CONCLUDED from the example. The example supports (provides evidence for) that conclusion.

Now consider  Choice B  — 'drawing a conclusion about a PARTICULAR CASE on the basis of a general principle.'  That would be the reverse direction : Start with a known rule, then apply it to a specific situation. For example: 'Freedom depends on diversity of choices (general rule).  Therefore ,  50  colas gives less freedom than  5  diverse drinks (particular case).' That's NOT what happens here. The professor doesn't start with the rule — he arrives at it.

So the direction is:  Specific example → General principle . That's exactly what  Choice A  describes: supporting (giving evidence for) a general principle by means of an example.

Key takeaway:  In CR, 'supports' means 'serves as evidence for.' The example is the evidence; the principle is what it proves.

Answer: A

Professor: A person who can select a beverage from

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

Professor: A person who can select a beverage from

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