When making a logical argument, it is essential to distinguish between

Question

When making a logical argument, it is essential to distinguish between theory and fact and to recognize the place of each. Theory suggests an idea or a hypothesis that might be true, but it requires the support of fact in order to verify it. Fact is the evidence or the proof that makes a theory valid; without fact, that theory is merely a concept for consideration and an idea that has potential. Theory is not always unacceptable in a logical argument, but that theory must be based on comparable facts from similar situations or examples. A logical argument founded on a theory usually ends in speculation, while a logical argument that builds on a theory with comparable facts can prove to be highly effective.

Which of the following does the passage above imply?

(C) Theory is basically equivalent to speculation and, as such, can undermine the strength of a logical argument.

(E) Theory has a place in a logical argument, but only if fact can be proven based on an analogous scenario.

Which of the following does the passage above imply?

(A) Fact is always more important and more valuable than theory when making a logical argument.

(B) While theory has a place in a logical argument, it is generally better to avoid it altogether.

(C) Theory is basically equivalent to speculation and, as such, can undermine the strength of a logical argument.

(D) Theory should never be confused with fact, at the risk of making a logical argument that is entirely false.

(E) Theory has a place in a logical argument, but only if fact can be proven based on an analogous scenario.

GAngstA · Answer

my stand is option A, because it is fact are more valuable than logical argument. 
looking for official answer.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Overview:

Question presents the student with a more abstract line of reasoning, in which the author of the passage makes the distinction between theory and fact. Theory is represented as “an idea or hypothesis,” while fact is shown to be “evidence or proof.” The author goes on to indicate that theory relies on fact for support, while fact can stand on its own. As the passage progresses, the author provides context to this discussion by explaining the place of theory and fact in making a logical argument: theory is valid if it has fact to back it up, but without fact theory can only be “speculation.” The question then asks the student to determine the answer choice that is implied by statements made in the passage. With this type of question, the student will definitely have to review the individual answer choices closely to locate the one that is correct. And as always with implication/inference questions, the student needs to be able to point back to the passage for the clear statement(s) of implication in order for the answer choice to be correct.

The Correct Answer:

E Answer choice (E) best expresses the implication made in the following statement: “Theory is not always unacceptable in a logical argument, but that theory must be based on comparable facts from similar situations or examples.” In other words, the author is implying that a theory is perfectly valid when making a logical argument, but the theory requires fact from an analogous scenario for it to have a solid place within the argument’s line of reasoning. Answer choice (E) is thus correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

A The author does imply that fact is valuable for supporting and developing theory in a logical argument, but the author does not imply a statement of opinion that fact is always more important and more valuable than theory. The author seems more focused on discussing the place of each in logical arguments and in considering the way that the two elements work together. From the author’s comments, it is possible to infer that theory developed by fact could be a very effective technique for making a logical argument. Claiming that fact is always more significant than theory assumes more than the passage implies, so it cannot be correct. Answer choice (A) may be eliminated.

B The author makes no statement about avoiding theory. In reality, the author suggests that theory supported by fact could be very valuable in making a logical argument. Answer choice (B) assumes too much, so it cannot be correct.

C The author indicates that theory void of fact (within a logical argument) “usually ends in a speculation.” This means that theory without fact does not present a strong argument, but this does not mean that all theory in a logical argument (with or without fact) is the same as speculation. Answer choice (C) takes the author’s words out of context, so it cannot be correct.

D The author does claim that “it is essential to distinguish between theory and fact.” It cannot be inferred from this, however, that confusing theory with fact could lead to a logical argument that is entirely false. In reality, the author suggests that this could lead to a faulty or weak argument, but the author does not go to the extreme of the answer choice. As a result, answer choice (D) should be eliminated.

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  Bunuel   GMATNinja   KarishmaB   MartyMurray

I am still not very clear with option E and option C.

1. Option E uses "only if fact can be proven...", I rejected E on the basis of word "prove" as why one needs to prove the fact, fact by definition is an evidence and doesn't need to be proved.

2. Option C uses "Theory" which should mean that we are only talking about theory (without any fact), this option seems more like an implication as the argument says "Theory is not always unacceptable in a logical argument.....A logical argument founded on a theory usually ends in speculation"

Could you please help to clear these doubts on two options? Where do you think I made the mistake exactly?

The Correct Answer:

E Answer choice (E) best expresses the implication made in the following statement: “Theory is not always unacceptable in a logical argument, but that theory must be based on comparable facts from similar situations or examples.” In other words, the author is implying that a theory is perfectly valid when making a logical argument, but the theory requires fact from an analogous scenario for it to have a solid place within the argument’s line of reasoning. Answer choice (E) is thus correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

C The author indicates that theory void of fact (within a logical argument) “usually ends in a speculation.” This means that theory without fact does not present a strong argument, but this does not mean that all theory in a logical argument (with or without fact) is the same as speculation. Answer choice (C) takes the author’s words out of context, so it cannot be correct.

GMATNinja · Answer

Here's the final line of the argument again:

The gist is that an argument based on theory alone is more like speculation, whereas an argument that  builds  on a theory with facts can be pretty darn compelling.

Put simply: theory alone? Meh. Theory + facts? Yay!

(C) seems to be saying that theory is inherently bad and can undermine an argument. But that's not the author's claim. The claim is that we need theory and facts together to make a persuasive argument. So (C) is out.

Notice that (E) is merely saying that theory  has a place  in an argument. Well, yeah. If we get both theory and facts, then we're on to something. So (E) is consistent with the argument and is our winner.

I hope that clears things up!

Smedhi · Answer

Although e is the best option among all ,i can see option e explicitly mentioned in the question. i cannot think of it as implied.

GMATNinja · Answer

An inference can be several logical steps away from what's in the passage OR it can be remarkably close to what's in the passage. As described in this post , "as long as the language is slightly different, it qualifies as an inference, and not something that was directly stated." The passage states, "Theory is not always unacceptable in a logical argument, but that theory must be based on comparable facts from similar situations or examples." Choice (E) is pretty similar, but it's not exactly the same thing. Sure, it's only a tiny step away from what's in the passage, but that's enough to make it an inference. For another example of an inference that is pretty close to what's in the passage, check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-effects- ... l#p3475600.

When making a logical argument, it is essential to distinguish between

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

When making a logical argument, it is essential to distinguish between

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