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 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.
03 Nov 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
75% (01:34) correct
25%
(01:49)
wrong
based on 297
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Advocate: You claim that it is wrong to own gasoline-powered cars because they pollute too much; you have an electric car, which pollutes far less. But the company that made your car also makes millions of gasoline-powered vehicles, so your patronage benefits a producer of products to which you object. Thus, if you are right about gasoline-powered cars, you should not have your electric car either.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the advocate’s reasoning?
(A) An action can be wrong even if it has fewer negative consequences than another action.
(B) One should purchase a product only if it pollutes less than any competing product.
(C) One should purchase every product whose use has no negative consequences.
(D) One should not support an organization that does anything one believes to be wrong.
(E) One should not purchase products from companies that make no environmentally sound products.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the advocate’s reasoning?
(A) An action can be wrong even if it has fewer negative consequences than another action.
(B) One should purchase a product only if it pollutes less than any competing product.
(C) One should purchase every product whose use has no negative consequences.
(D) One should not support an organization that does anything one believes to be wrong.
(E) One should not purchase products from companies that make no environmentally sound products.
04 Nov 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This is a stupid argument. You shouldn’t buy an electric car because you object to gas cars, and your electric is made by a company that also makes gas cars, so when you buy an electric you therefore benefit a producer of a product (gas cars) you object to? This is some counterproductive hippie nonsense. It’s letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Surely electric cars are an improvement even when sold by a company that also sells gas cars. Nothing is perfect. Unfortunately, we are asked to try to strengthen this ridiculous argument. In order to make the conclusion follow from the facts, we need a premise that is something like, “You shouldn’t do anything that ever benefits anyone who does anything you disapprove of, no matter how slightly.” Note that this is an extremely powerful statement, far more powerful than it even needs to be in order to make the conclusion valid. This is okay, because this is like a Sufficient Assumption question, not like a Necessary Assumption question. On this type of question, we’re asked to find an additional premise that helps to prove the conclusion. It’s OK if the answer would prove more than the conclusion.
A) Too weak. “Can be wrong”? On this type of question, we’re looking for “is wrong.”
B) The argument is not about pollution. The electric car does pollute less than the gas car, but the hippie advocate still thinks the electric car is bad, because it benefits the creator of gas cars. This is out.
C) The conclusion is about not purchasing something. This answer would be good for proving that we should purchase something. No way.
D) This is very close to our prediction. If this is true, then the person should not have the electric car.
E) This doesn’t do anything, because we can either argue that the company does make an environmentally sound product (the electric car) or we can argue that “environmentally sound” has not been defined. Who is to say? There is no premise that tells us what this is supposed to mean.
Our answer is D.
06 Nov 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (D)
In this stimulus, the advocate alleges hypocrisy on the part of the electric car owner:
- Premise: ..... You claim that it’s wrong to own a polluting, gas-powered car.
Premise: ..... You have a less polluting electric car.
Premise: ..... You’re a patron of your car’s maker, who makes gas-powered cars as well.
Conclusion: ..... If you are right about objecting to gas-powered cars, then you should not be driving your electric car.
The principle that the advocate asserts is basically this: One should not patronize a company involved in anything that one is against. Since the question requires us to find a principle that will strengthen (or “most justify”) the advocate’s argument, it should be related to this notion.
Answer choice (A): Although it is consistent with the argument in the stimulus, it does this choice does not provide much strength to the author’s conclusion. The author’s point is not that the electric car is wrong despite its lower detriment—the point is that the electric car driver should not be driving a vehicle produced by gas-car makers.
Answer choice (B): The advocate’s argument does not rest on whether the electric car is the least polluting, but on the fact that the car is made by the same organization that makes the more polluting, gas-powered vehicles.
Answer choice (C): The advocate would not likely argue that one should purchase every product with no negative consequences. Additionally, the advocate concedes that the electric car carries some negative consequences (which “pollutes far less”), so this principle would be entirely irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, restating the principle from our discussion above. If one should not support an organization that takes part in anything one believes to be wrong, then the advocate’s argument is certainly bolstered.
Answer choice (E): This principle has no effect on the advocate’s argument, which is not that the car company makes no environmentally sound products, but rather that it makes some products that are not as environmentally friendly (gas-powered cars).
