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.
A
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:
52% (02:21) correct
48%
(02:33)
wrong
based on 619
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The true scientific significance of a group of unusual fossils discovered by the paleontologist Charles Walcott is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott's own classification. Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment. His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?
(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source.
(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.
(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.
(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim.
(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique used in the argument?
(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source.
(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions.
(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed.
(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim.
(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion.
01 Dec 2019, 12:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is how I got it right -
Structure of the argument:
Conclusion: the significance of Charles Walcott's finding is in its reflection of recent classification, not in his own findings.
Premise: Charles Walcott is prominent.
Restated conclusion (indicated by "thus"): Charles Walcott only confirmed what was already given.
Answers:
(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source. // Source of the evidence is Charles Walcott. Correct.
(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions. // There is only one piece of evidence. Incorrect.
(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed. // There is only one premise; both conclusions support each other. Incorrect.
(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim. // The argument did not deny the opposite of the claim (e.g. denying that Charles Walcott did not confirm the classifications). Incorrect.
(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion. // There is no discussion about past/present/social/political aspects. Out of scope. Incorrect.
Structure of the argument:
Conclusion: the significance of Charles Walcott's finding is in its reflection of recent classification, not in his own findings.
Premise: Charles Walcott is prominent.
Restated conclusion (indicated by "thus"): Charles Walcott only confirmed what was already given.
Answers:
(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source. // Source of the evidence is Charles Walcott. Correct.
(B) It cites two pieces of evidence, each of which is both questionable and unverifiable, and uses this evidence to support its conclusions. // There is only one piece of evidence. Incorrect.
(C) It bases a conclusion on two premises that contradict each other and minimizes this contradiction by the vagueness of the terms employed. // There is only one premise; both conclusions support each other. Incorrect.
(D) It attempts to establish the validity of a claim, which is otherwise unsupported, by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim. // The argument did not deny the opposite of the claim (e.g. denying that Charles Walcott did not confirm the classifications). Incorrect.
(E) It analyzes the past on the basis of social and political categories that properly apply only to the present and uses the results of this analysis to support its conclusion. // There is no discussion about past/present/social/political aspects. Out of scope. Incorrect.
sharathnair14
Joined: 05 May 2019
Last visit: 27 May 2020
Posts: 160
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 221
Schools: LBS '25 ISB '25 Manchester'26 Stern '26 Tuck '26 INSEAD Aug'24 intake Yale '26 Kellogg '26 Wharton '26
GPA: 3
Schools: LBS '25 ISB '25 Manchester'26 Stern '26 Tuck '26 INSEAD Aug'24 intake Yale '26 Kellogg '26 Wharton '26
Posts: 160
Kudos:
367
02 Dec 2019, 04:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here's an Explanation.
The first sentence talks about the importance of a group of Fossils discovered by CW.
The importance of these Fossils is more likely to be explained on a later classification (Perhaps the Species/Genus etc.) than on CW's original classification.
The Second Sentence says a bit about CW.
CW was a prominent member of a Council/Association/ etc.
The Third, where the reasoning lies, says-
CW's classification, thus, only might have confirmed the council's take on the classification of the fossil.
I tried to dig a little deeper and understood the structure here.
Being a Prominent member probably meant CW's discoveries (and classifications) were already what the Council(Establishment) knew was true.
(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source. What this really means that the Conclusion (That the importance of the fossils is more likely explained in later classifications) is simply based on information about the background of CW.
The first sentence talks about the importance of a group of Fossils discovered by CW.
The importance of these Fossils is more likely to be explained on a later classification (Perhaps the Species/Genus etc.) than on CW's original classification.
The Second Sentence says a bit about CW.
CW was a prominent member of a Council/Association/ etc.
The Third, where the reasoning lies, says-
CW's classification, thus, only might have confirmed the council's take on the classification of the fossil.
I tried to dig a little deeper and understood the structure here.
Being a Prominent member probably meant CW's discoveries (and classifications) were already what the Council(Establishment) knew was true.
(A) It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source. What this really means that the Conclusion (That the importance of the fossils is more likely explained in later classifications) is simply based on information about the background of CW.
