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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
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.
22 Sep 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (01:58) correct
55%
(02:07)
wrong
based on 165
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Interviewer: A certain company released a model of computer whose microprocessor design was flawed, making that computer liable to process information incorrectly. How did this happen?
Industry spokesperson: Given the huge number of the microprocessor is released.
Interviewer: Then what guarantee do we have that new microprocessors will not be similarly flawed?
Industry spokesperson: There is no chance of further microprocessors design flaws, since all microprocessors are now entirely computer-designed.
The industry spokesperson's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the microprocessor quality-control procedures of the company mentioned are not representative of those followed throughout the industry
(B) ignores the possibility that a microprocessor can have a flaw other than a design flaw
(C) overlooks the possibility that a new computer model is liable to malfunction for reasons other than a microprocessor flaw
(D) treats a single instance of a microprocessor design flaw as evidence that there will be many such flaws
(E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary, that some computers are not liable to error
Industry spokesperson: Given the huge number of the microprocessor is released.
Interviewer: Then what guarantee do we have that new microprocessors will not be similarly flawed?
Industry spokesperson: There is no chance of further microprocessors design flaws, since all microprocessors are now entirely computer-designed.
The industry spokesperson's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the microprocessor quality-control procedures of the company mentioned are not representative of those followed throughout the industry
(B) ignores the possibility that a microprocessor can have a flaw other than a design flaw
(C) overlooks the possibility that a new computer model is liable to malfunction for reasons other than a microprocessor flaw
(D) treats a single instance of a microprocessor design flaw as evidence that there will be many such flaws
(E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary, that some computers are not liable to error
23 Sep 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Wait, what? Computers are flawed, but this new computer was designed by a computer, therefore this new computer is perfect? Does. Not. Compute.
We’re asked to identify a flaw in the argument, and I think we’ve already done that. How can a computer, designed by computer, be perfect if computers can be imperfect in the first place?
A) This just isn’t what we’re looking for. We have a very strong prediction here, and this doesn’t match that prediction, so unless it slaps us in the face and says “Yeah, but I am the correct answer anyway!” then we can’t waste much time on it.
B) Same explanation as A. Just not what we’re looking for.
C) Ditto.
D) Ditto.
E) Yeah. This isn’t exactly what we predicted, but it can be interpreted to mean the same thing. The logic was, “A computer designed by a computer is perfect,” which assumes that at least one computer (the computer doing the designing) is perfect in the first place. That’s what this answer says, so I think this has to be our answer.
This question is a really good example of how we can occasionally save a ton of time by predicting the correct answer well in advance and then totally disrespecting any answer choice that doesn’t match our prediction. I’m not saying we have to do this on every question. But it sure is nice when it happens.
Our answer is E.
General Discussion
22 Sep 2021, 02:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prethink
To attack industry spokesperson's argument, we need to understand the way he responds to the question "what guarantee do we have that new microprocessors will not be similarly flawed?"
The spokesperson did not argue on the fact (that the mentioned flaw did not happen) nor did he talk about any factor that resulted the mentioned flaw.
He denied the likelihood of further flaws ,with an information that new microprocessors were computer-designed. Do we have any information about how the flawed microprocessors were designed? No.
Thus, the spokesperson argument is not supported by anything that is different from the earlier case.
Now, let's have a look at the choices -
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the microprocessor quality-control procedures of the company mentioned are not representative of those followed throughout the industry
The quality control procedure is not even scoped in the discussion. The discussion talks about design- flawed microprocessors - be it due to any reason.
(B) ignores the possibility that a microprocessor can have a flaw other than a design flaw
The argument is all about the design flaw.
(C) overlooks the possibility that a new computer model is liable to malfunction for reasons other than a microprocessor flaw
The argument is scoped for microprocessor flaw only.
(D) treats a single instance of a microprocessor design flaw as evidence that there will be many such flaws
On contrary, the spokesperson denies the likelihood of such flaws.
(E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary, that some computers are not liable to error
This choice says that the spokesperson's argument is not supported by anything that is different from the earlier case. He gives just a unsupported claim i.e. taken for granted.
IMO E
To attack industry spokesperson's argument, we need to understand the way he responds to the question "what guarantee do we have that new microprocessors will not be similarly flawed?"
The spokesperson did not argue on the fact (that the mentioned flaw did not happen) nor did he talk about any factor that resulted the mentioned flaw.
He denied the likelihood of further flaws ,with an information that new microprocessors were computer-designed. Do we have any information about how the flawed microprocessors were designed? No.
Thus, the spokesperson argument is not supported by anything that is different from the earlier case.
Now, let's have a look at the choices -
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the microprocessor quality-control procedures of the company mentioned are not representative of those followed throughout the industry
The quality control procedure is not even scoped in the discussion. The discussion talks about design- flawed microprocessors - be it due to any reason.
(B) ignores the possibility that a microprocessor can have a flaw other than a design flaw
The argument is all about the design flaw.
(C) overlooks the possibility that a new computer model is liable to malfunction for reasons other than a microprocessor flaw
The argument is scoped for microprocessor flaw only.
(D) treats a single instance of a microprocessor design flaw as evidence that there will be many such flaws
On contrary, the spokesperson denies the likelihood of such flaws.
(E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary, that some computers are not liable to error
This choice says that the spokesperson's argument is not supported by anything that is different from the earlier case. He gives just a unsupported claim i.e. taken for granted.
IMO E
