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 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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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.
12 Mar 2024, 10:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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% (02:20) correct
25%
(02:29)
wrong
based on 191
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Editorial: Supporters of the proposed law that would require bicyclists to wear helmets are seriously misguided. The number of pedestrians who die yearly as a result of accidents involving automobiles is five times the number of deaths resulting from bicycle accidents, and drunken driving exacts a much higher toll than both combined. Yet there are no calls for a ban on alcohol or walking down the street.
Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) It is silly to recommend that test pilots give up cigarette smoking. Their risk of death from other causes is so high that it is unlikely they will live long enough to develop lung cancer.
(B) It is foolish to require lab workers to wear safety goggles when working with acids and other dangerous liquids. No one suggests that people stop eating or socializing, even though more people become ill due to food poisoning and contagious diseases than are injured in laboratory accidents.
(C) The proposal to introduce foreign language study to students in their first years of school is misguided. Young students should master their own language first and learn basic mathematics before studying a foreign language. No one suggests teaching calculus before arithmetic.
(D) The recommendation that this company replace the radio communication system in our fleet of trucks with an entirely new system is unwise. Most of our trucks are scheduled to be replaced by the end of next year, so updating the communication system then would be more cost effective.
(E) The mayor's directive that all city employees be tested for Lyme disease is inefficient. Not one case of the disease has been reported among office workers. The directive should apply only to those employees who work outside and may have been exposed to the ticks that carry the disease.
Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) It is silly to recommend that test pilots give up cigarette smoking. Their risk of death from other causes is so high that it is unlikely they will live long enough to develop lung cancer.
(B) It is foolish to require lab workers to wear safety goggles when working with acids and other dangerous liquids. No one suggests that people stop eating or socializing, even though more people become ill due to food poisoning and contagious diseases than are injured in laboratory accidents.
(C) The proposal to introduce foreign language study to students in their first years of school is misguided. Young students should master their own language first and learn basic mathematics before studying a foreign language. No one suggests teaching calculus before arithmetic.
(D) The recommendation that this company replace the radio communication system in our fleet of trucks with an entirely new system is unwise. Most of our trucks are scheduled to be replaced by the end of next year, so updating the communication system then would be more cost effective.
(E) The mayor's directive that all city employees be tested for Lyme disease is inefficient. Not one case of the disease has been reported among office workers. The directive should apply only to those employees who work outside and may have been exposed to the ticks that carry the disease.
12 Apr 2024, 13:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
This type of problem——in which you have to find the answer choice that follows the same logical 'formula' as the original passage (like being given an algebraic formula involving variables x, y, and z, and looking for the same formula with variables a, b, and c instead)——is a pillar of LSAT logical reasoning, but is rare on the GMAT (...so, in your studying, don't prioritize this problem type over any of the more common GMAT CR types).
By 'same formula' here, I really do mean SAME formula. If the original passage gives three different examples of something, for instance, the correct answer should contain exactly three analogous examples. Likewise for other 'specs' of the original argument.
If you can actually write this 'formula', you should not have trouble determining which answer choice conforms to it.
.
Here...
• Making this preventative measure mandatory is a bad idea. (main point)
BECAUSE
• these two totally different, unrelated threats each victimize more people than the threat you're trying to neutralize
YET
• nobody is seriously suggesting preventative actions for THOSE things.
.
Interestingly, you don't even need to put a finger on why the argument is flawed. There will only be one answer choice (the correct one!) that follows the same 'formula' as the passage, so, you should be able to find the correct answer even if you have no idea why the argument is fallacious/flawed.
.
Only choice B fits the exact template laid out above. With individual parts color-coded to match their counterparts:
Pointing out the way(s) in which each WRONG answer FAILS to conform to the above template is a useful process-of-elimination exercise for you to do here. Note that, as usual, process-of-elimination is neither the best nor the most efficient way to do the problem; the ideal method is to formulate what you ARE looking for, and then to go find the choice that matches that standard.
By 'same formula' here, I really do mean SAME formula. If the original passage gives three different examples of something, for instance, the correct answer should contain exactly three analogous examples. Likewise for other 'specs' of the original argument.
If you can actually write this 'formula', you should not have trouble determining which answer choice conforms to it.
.
Here...
Quote:
...the 'formula' is
• Making this preventative measure mandatory is a bad idea. (main point)
BECAUSE
• these two totally different, unrelated threats each victimize more people than the threat you're trying to neutralize
YET
• nobody is seriously suggesting preventative actions for THOSE things.
.
Interestingly, you don't even need to put a finger on why the argument is flawed. There will only be one answer choice (the correct one!) that follows the same 'formula' as the passage, so, you should be able to find the correct answer even if you have no idea why the argument is fallacious/flawed.
.
Only choice B fits the exact template laid out above. With individual parts color-coded to match their counterparts:
Quote:
Note that, as promised, there are exactly two examples of "threats that victimize more people than the threat targeted by the proposed preventative measure", just as there are in the original argument.
Pointing out the way(s) in which each WRONG answer FAILS to conform to the above template is a useful process-of-elimination exercise for you to do here. Note that, as usual, process-of-elimination is neither the best nor the most efficient way to do the problem; the ideal method is to formulate what you ARE looking for, and then to go find the choice that matches that standard.
General Discussion
04 Apr 2024, 10:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
The flaw is that the argument does not address the original point, but rather justifies not implementing the rule using other alternatives on which no action has yet been taken.
On this basis options C, D, E can be easily eliminated.
We are left with option A and B.
In option A too there is/are no "other ways to die" explicitly mentioned based on which the recommendation of giving up cigarettes can be termed as silly. Hence eliminate (doesn’t correspond to the flaw in the question)
Anser: Option B
On this basis options C, D, E can be easily eliminated.
We are left with option A and B.
In option A too there is/are no "other ways to die" explicitly mentioned based on which the recommendation of giving up cigarettes can be termed as silly. Hence eliminate (doesn’t correspond to the flaw in the question)
Anser: Option B
