Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among people wh

Question

Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among people who used computers at their place of employment last year, those who also owned portable ("laptop") computers earned 25 percent more on average than those who did not. It is obvious from this that owning a laptop computer led to a higher-paying job.

Which one of the following identifies a reasoning error in the argument?

(A) It attempts to support a sweeping generalization on the basis of information about only a small number of individuals.

(B) Its conclusion merely restates a claim made earlier in the argument.

(C) It concludes that one thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing's having caused the second.

(D) It offers information as support for a conclusion when that information actually shows that the conclusion is false.

(E) It uncritically projects currently existing trends indefinitely into the future.

Zeka · Answer

C.

higher position (eg. Senior manager) -> lap top is given by a company to a manager -> higher salary

If someone from lower position buy notebook it doesn't mean that he would get higher salary. 

Anyone else?

stoolfi · Answer

C. Argument assumes correlation=causation, and might mistake cause for effect.

gandharvm · Answer

The reasoning for OA (C) mentioned by  Zeka  seems to be a little too vague. Can't a junior employee earn enough to afford a laptop? Can't a junior employee be given a laptop in addition to a computer?
Option C says that instead of laptops causing higher salaries, higher salaries are enabling the purchase of laptop.Seems a little too generalized.

IMO, (A) seems like a better option. The argument relies on the data from only the  last year . This is a relatively small number to make such a sweeping generalization that laptops cause higher salaries. (even though, this is slightly vague too, but less compared to option C )

nightblade354 · Answer

gandharvm , even in your argument for (A) you hit on why (C) is correct. You said that it causes something. But we have no idea about correlation equaling causation, which is why (C) is correct.

gandharvm · Answer

nightblade354  I am not sure I understand, kindly elaborate.
To clarify:
In support for (A) I argue that  no  generalizations can be made using data from only  last year .
Against (C) I argue that there is no reason to believe that higher salaries are causing 'laptops'

nightblade354 · Answer

gandharvm , see here: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... t4296.html and: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=13815 If you need further explanation, I can do one myself.

auradediligodo · Answer

Pre-thinking

The argument concludes that the ownership of computer led to higher paid jobs. The argument although leaves scope for another scenario: The higher paid job might have led to the ownership of the computer.

Option C  , although it is not a must be true statement, suggests that there might be another scenario in line with our pre-thought alternative scenario.

POE

(A) It attempts to support a sweeping generalization on the basis of information about only a small number of individuals.
 No generalization

(B) Its conclusion merely restates a claim made earlier in the argument.
 The conclusion talks about a cause-effect relation while the previous sentence describes a fact. Hence the 2 entities are different

(D) It offers information as support for a conclusion when that information actually shows that the conclusion is false.
 Incorrect

(E) It uncritically projects currently existing trends indefinitely into the future.
 Conclusion is about the past, not the future

mykrasovski · Answer

nightblade354  thanks for sharing the links. I understand the explanation from Manhattan, but I have one question.

How do we correctly delineate the premise? Manhattan expert says that "the first thing (a higher paying job = $J) causing the second thing (owning a laptop computer - L) to occur" which is $J --> L. The conclusion states the opposite, i.e. L --> $J.

The premise is in the 2nd part of the 1st sentence: "those who also owned portable ("laptop") computers earned 25 percent more on average". I originally diagrammed it as L --> $J, and this is the same as the conclusion. Obviously, I made a mistake in diagramming the premise. But I have hard time understanding how come $J -- > L. Can you please help? Thank you!

nightblade354 · Answer

mykrasovski , answer choice (C) isn't saying that one caused the other. In fact, it is saying the opposite, of sorts. It is saying that the evidence supports that either could cause the other to exist, as this is a correlation vs. causation confusion. Your writing out that the premise and conclusion are the same is somewhat correct, it just overlooks the fact that the conclusion could be reversed and still be true based on the premise.

mykrasovski · Answer

nightblade354 oh alright. To make sure I understood you correctly, you mean that the premise is somewhat ambiguous meaning that either (a) L could cause $J OR (b) J$ could case L, while the conclusion is "one-sided" by saying (a).

Thanks much!

Thanks much!

nightblade354 · Answer

That is correct. The premise supports A caused B or B caused A, but the conclusions says it is only one way.

deveshj21 · Answer

nightblade354 
In option C it says that the evidence is against the conclusion, but I cant seem to find any such evidence, this really threw me off. Please help.

nightblade354 · Answer

deveshj21 , let's break down (C): It concludes that one thing was caused by another although the evidence given is consistent with the first thing's having cause the second.

At first glance, you might think, as you asked, that (C) is stating that the information in the premise goes against the conclusion. But this is not what this is saying, as I explained above. (C) is saying that the argument uses a premise to come to a conclusion, when they could use the conclusion to conclude the premise. In basic English, this is a correlation-causation error, and this is what answer choice (C) is trying to say. It is not saying that the premise and conclusion do not align; it says that they are, more or less, interchangeable.

Abhishekde · Answer

agree this is right. But option C does not say this. Its pretty vague.

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.

Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among people wh

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

Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among people wh

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