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!
20 Sep 2021, 02:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
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:
66% (01:53) correct
34%
(02:09)
wrong
based on 714
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Politician: Suppose censorship is wrong in itself, as modern liberals tend to believe. Then an actor’s refusing a part in a film because the film glamorizes a point of view abhorrent to the actor would be morally wrong. But this conclusion is absurd. It follows that censorship is not, after all, wrong in itself.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that actors would subscribe to any tenet of modern liberalism
(B) uses the term “liberal” in order to discredit opponents’ point of view
(C) takes for granted that there is a moral obligation to practice one’s profession
(D) draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with a premise it accepts
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that declining a film role constitutes censorship in the relevant sense
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that actors would subscribe to any tenet of modern liberalism
(B) uses the term “liberal” in order to discredit opponents’ point of view
(C) takes for granted that there is a moral obligation to practice one’s profession
(D) draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with a premise it accepts
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that declining a film role constitutes censorship in the relevant sense
25 Sep 2021, 02:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Straw man! Politicians and preachers love to do this. It’s actually an awesome debate technique. That is, if you’re debating a six-year-old. Politician: “Barack Obama’s health care plan will turn the United States into a Communist country. Surely, nobody wants us to become Communist, so the health care plan must be defeated.” (This argument misstates the reality of the plan, in order to more easily challenge it. Barack’s plan, whatever its strengths and weaknesses may be, does not turn the USA into a Communist **** country. Stop it.) Preacher: “Evolutionists believe that a fish was swimming along in the ocean one day, when a leg suddenly popped out its side! And then a leg popped out its other side, and then the fish started walking up the beach! That’s absurd, therefore the theory of evolution is wrong, praise Jesus!” This argument misstates the reality of evolution, in order to more easily challenge it. No scientist believes that a leg popped out the side of a fish. It’s more subtle and complicated than that, and it happened over billions of years, and just stop it you asshole. The preacher is either disingenuous, or stupid, or both.
Both the politician and the preacher are building up an artificial enemy made of straw, so that they can then puff up their chests and knock their straw man down with a seemingly mighty intellectual blow. But actually, they’re just blowhards.
The given argument does the same thing. It’s not “censorship” when an actor chooses not to take a role. The film will still get made. The politician has misstated the argument against censorship in order to more easily challenge it.
We’re asked to find a flaw, and we already have. This is one of the really big ones. After a while, it should start to jump out at you.
A) Huh? This isn’t what we’re looking for. And the argument never talks about actors being liberal or not.
B) No, this is what Rush Limbaugh tries to do every day: turn “Liberal” into a dirty word. That might be a flaw, but it’s not what the politician does.
C) I think the politician actually did the opposite of this. The politician is saying, “It would be absurd to force Clooney to make a film that glorifies war,” not “Clooney has a moral obligation to take every role he is offered.” No way.
D) No, I don’t see any premise in the argument that conflicts with the conclusion. This would be the answer if the argument had said “2+2=4, therefore 2+2 cannot equal four.” That’s not what happened here.
E) Yep. The politician has conflated “declining a film role” with “censorship.” Part of our objection above was “those are not the same two things.” So this answer points out the politician’s straw man argument.
Our answer is E.
General Discussion
15 Feb 2023, 08:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Politician: Suppose censorship is wrong in itself, as modern liberals tend to believe. Then an actor’s refusing a part in a film because the film glamorizes a point of view abhorrent to the actor would be morally wrong. But this conclusion is absurd. It follows that censorship is not, after all, wrong in itself.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that actors would subscribe to any tenet of modern liberalism - WRONG. Not at all. Why would actor do so. Not suggesting any such thing.
(B) uses the term “liberal” in order to discredit opponents’ point of view - WRONG. Not discrediting but only raising a counter argument without discrediting someone.
(C) takes for granted that there is a moral obligation to practice one’s profession - WRONG. Morality aspect is a diversion and irrelevant.
(D) draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with a premise it accepts - WRONG. It's consistent that's why politician takes a contra view, although in a wrong manner.
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that declining a film role constitutes censorship in the relevant sense - CORRECT. Declining equals censorship, but why? Censorship is a broader aspect than declining which is an individual choice. Apple to apple comparison is not there.
Answer E.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that actors would subscribe to any tenet of modern liberalism - WRONG. Not at all. Why would actor do so. Not suggesting any such thing.
(B) uses the term “liberal” in order to discredit opponents’ point of view - WRONG. Not discrediting but only raising a counter argument without discrediting someone.
(C) takes for granted that there is a moral obligation to practice one’s profession - WRONG. Morality aspect is a diversion and irrelevant.
(D) draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with a premise it accepts - WRONG. It's consistent that's why politician takes a contra view, although in a wrong manner.
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that declining a film role constitutes censorship in the relevant sense - CORRECT. Declining equals censorship, but why? Censorship is a broader aspect than declining which is an individual choice. Apple to apple comparison is not there.
Answer E.
