I bought a pair of glasses from an optometrist. One of the lenses

Question

I bought a pair of glasses from an optometrist. One of the lenses regularly pops out of the frame. Therefore, this optometrist doesn’t know how to make a good pair of glasses.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) does not allow the optometrist a chance to defend himself

(B) does not consider the possibility that other optometrists also make defective frames

(C) criticizes the optometrist’s use of a particular technique when making glasses

(D) jumps to the conclusion that the defect in the glasses must be due to the optometrist’s lack of skill

(E) accuses the optometrist of deliberately sabotaging the glasses

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

diasdexter766 · Answer

Option D works as it weakens the conclusion by adding in a premise - about the skill of the Optometrist.

Shwarma · Answer

Option D

Conclusion: Optometrist doesn't make good glasses 
Vulnerable to criticism... based on the passage 
This is not weaken qs - so you don't need a new premise.

(A) does not allow the optometrist a chance to defend himself -  not relevant

(B) does not consider the possibility that other optometrists also make defective frames -  not relevant coz we are saying THIS one is bad

(C) criticizes the optometrist’s use of a particular technique when making glasses -  Not mentioned in the passage

(D) jumps to the conclusion that the defect in the glasses must be due to the optometrist’s lack of skill -  Yes

(E) accuses the optometrist of deliberately sabotaging the glasses -  Not mentioned

tgsankar10 · Answer

Answer : D

Conclusion: optometrist doesn't know how to make good glasses, questions the skill of optometrist

A:  NO . Not relevant
B:  NO . Other optometrists or optometrists in general are not discussed in the argument
C:  NO . No technique discusses
D:   YES  . Argument directly questions optometrist’s skill without a premise
E:  NO . Not relevant

Purnank · Answer

D it is.

The defect in the glasses is due to the optometrist's lack of skill without considering other potential reasons for the issue. Thus, the criticism is best captured by option (D).

PranavVyas · Answer

IMO D

Only option weaken conclusion.

(D) jumps to the conclusion that the defect in the glasses must be due to the optometrist’s lack of skill

said.tojiboev · Answer

I bought a pair of glasses from an optometrist. One of the lenses regularly pops out of the frame. Therefore, this optometrist doesn’t know how to make a good pair of glasses.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(D) jumps to the conclusion that the defect in the glasses must be due to the optometrist’s lack of skill

Does the optometrist's lack of skill support the conclusion that he does not know how to do it? Should the correct answer actually weaken the conclusion? Can anyone explain this in detail? I think "doesn't know how to do it = lack of skill

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

said.tojiboev

The key here is that this is NOT a weaken question; it's a Flaw question. In a Flaw question, our job is to point out something the author did wrong in the argument. This typically happens in one of 3 ways:

1) Describe an assumption of the argument. These answers will look just like answers to an Assumption question, except that they will include language referring directly to an assumption in the answer choice (e.g. "assumes," "takes for granted that," etc.)
2) Point out a weakener. In these answers, we'll have to say language that indicates that something was overlooked. The answer may say "fails to recognize" or "overlooks the possibility."
3) Directly describe a type of logical error the author commits. This could be something like "Concludes causation based on correlation" or "Dismisses a claim due to the motivation of the party making the claim."

A,C, and E fit type 3, but none of them actually describe anything the author did wrong. B is of the second type, but the idea presented doesn't weaken. D looks like the third type as well, but in this case "jumps to the conclusion" seems to be a way of saying "assumes." (I don't know if the GMAT would actually use that language, but that is an everyday way of saying "concludes without evidence," which is basically what we do when we assume.) So if D seems more like a strengthener than a weakener, that makes sense. D is pointing out an assumption of the argument, but doing so in a way that makes it clear that the author is not justified in making that assumption.

In short, D shows a flaw of the argument by saying "Hey, the author doesn't actually know that the defect is due to the optometrist's lack of skill."

I bought a pair of glasses from an optometrist. One of the lenses

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

I bought a pair of glasses from an optometrist. One of the lenses

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards