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 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.
28 Jun 2021, 04:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (01:46) correct
36%
(02:09)
wrong
based on 250
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Political candidates' speak with promises that will benefit others, will make people believe that they are the people with good intentions though they have selfish motives behind them. Hence the promises made by them are unreliable.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument above?
A. The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person's promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable.
B. The argument presumes, without giving any justification, that promises made for selfish motives are never fulfilled.
C. The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause.
D. The argument ignores the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so.
E. The argument ignores the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument above?
A. The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person's promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable.
B. The argument presumes, without giving any justification, that promises made for selfish motives are never fulfilled.
C. The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause.
D. The argument ignores the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so.
E. The argument ignores the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running.
massan
Joined: 26 Aug 2020
Last visit: 15 Apr 2026
Posts: 93
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Location: Korea, Republic of
Schools: Kellogg '24 (I) INSEAD Jan'23 intake (M) CEIBS (A$$$) CBS '25 (A) McDonough '25 (A$) IESE '25 (A$$) Sloan '25 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q47 V23
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 2.4
Schools: Kellogg '24 (I) INSEAD Jan'23 intake (M) CEIBS (A$$$) CBS '25 (A) McDonough '25 (A$) IESE '25 (A$$) Sloan '25 (A)
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
Posts: 93
Kudos:
32
28 Jun 2021, 04:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
I'll go with E.
Q:Political candidates' speak with promises that will benefit others, will make people believe that they are the people with good intentions though they have selfish motives behind them. Hence the promises made by them are unreliable.
Assumption : selfish motives = unreliable
A. The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person's promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable.
=> not selfish -> reliable
The argument is talking about selfish motives. Out of scope.
B. The argument presumes, without giving any justification, that promises made for selfish motives are never fulfilled.
=> selfish motives -> never fulfilled
let's keep B, but I'd be careful about 'never' fulfil to replace 'unreliable'.
C. The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause.
The argument is talking about motives to effect. It does not confuse effect with cause.
D. The argument ignores the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so.
The argument does a promise need to be reliable just because person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so?
The argument is talking about selfish motive -> unreliable.
Out of scope since the argument does not talk about ulterior motive -> ????
E. The argument ignores the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running.
This is better choice than B.
By pointing out selfish motive -> may be worthy, it attacks the argument directly and breaks the assumption.
EDIT:
ah, I simplified question too much and made mistake though simplification.
Assumption: promises that benefit others-> selfish motives-> unreliable.
Argument sums up to be candidates who make promises to benefit others are unreliable. what? something is off. that means basically every candidate who promises benefits are unreliable! Then what, we should vote for candidates who will harm the others, or candidates who makes no promises to benefit the community?
E speaks Selfish motives-> may be worthy. This only half-way attacks assumption, although directly.
D: promises needs not be unreliable -> negate-> promises needs unreliable just because person have ulterior motives . Negation technique seems to work. This attacks 'promises that benefit others' part.
candidates can be reliable even if they have selfish motives to run the office.
Is this 700+ Question?
Q:Political candidates' speak with promises that will benefit others, will make people believe that they are the people with good intentions though they have selfish motives behind them. Hence the promises made by them are unreliable.
Assumption : selfish motives = unreliable
A. The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person's promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable.
=> not selfish -> reliable
The argument is talking about selfish motives. Out of scope.
B. The argument presumes, without giving any justification, that promises made for selfish motives are never fulfilled.
=> selfish motives -> never fulfilled
let's keep B, but I'd be careful about 'never' fulfil to replace 'unreliable'.
C. The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause.
The argument is talking about motives to effect. It does not confuse effect with cause.
D. The argument ignores the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so.
The argument does a promise need to be reliable just because person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so?
The argument is talking about selfish motive -> unreliable.
Out of scope since the argument does not talk about ulterior motive -> ????
E. The argument ignores the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running.
This is better choice than B.
By pointing out selfish motive -> may be worthy, it attacks the argument directly and breaks the assumption.
EDIT:
ah, I simplified question too much and made mistake though simplification.
Assumption: promises that benefit others-> selfish motives-> unreliable.
Argument sums up to be candidates who make promises to benefit others are unreliable. what? something is off. that means basically every candidate who promises benefits are unreliable! Then what, we should vote for candidates who will harm the others, or candidates who makes no promises to benefit the community?
E speaks Selfish motives-> may be worthy. This only half-way attacks assumption, although directly.
D: promises needs not be unreliable -> negate-> promises needs unreliable just because person have ulterior motives . Negation technique seems to work. This attacks 'promises that benefit others' part.
candidates can be reliable even if they have selfish motives to run the office.
Is this 700+ Question?
12 Jul 2021, 21:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
The argument says: If selfish motives are present -----> then the promise is unreliable.
If A --> Then B.
A. The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person's promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable. -this says: If NOT A --> then NOT B; we can't infer this.
B. The argument presumes, without giving any justification, that promises made for selfish motives are never fulfilled. - Fulfillment of promises is not discussed.
C. The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause. - No, the argument doesn't confuse an action with its cause.
D. The argument ignores the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so. - CORRECT.
E. The argument ignores the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running. - Worthiness of a candidate is not discussed in the passage.
Answer D.
