In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that

Question

In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that only those with a soft shooting touch can develop. Wilt Chamberlain, however, was a great player, so even though he did not have a soft shooting touch he would have excelled at scoring three point shots.

Which one of the following contains a flaw that most closely parallels the flaw contained in the passage?

(A) Eighty percent of the freshmen at Berkeley go on to get a bachelor’s degree. David is a freshman at Berkeley, so he will probably complete his studies and receive a bachelor’s degree.

(B) If the police don’t act immediately to quell the disturbance, it will escalate into a riot. However, since the police are understaffed, there will be a riot.

(C) The meek shall inherit the earth. Susie received an inheritance from her grandfather, so she must be meek.

(D) During the Vietnam War, the powerful had to serve along with the poor. However, Stevens’ father was a federal judge, so Stevens was able to get a draft deferment.

(E) All dolphins are mammals and all mammals breathe air. Therefore, all mammals that breathe air are dolphins.

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

DmitryFarberMPrep · Accepted Answer

This isn't a great question. It's an attempt at an LSAT-like Match the Flaw setup, but the answer doesn't match the flaw in the argument as precisely as it should. However, here's the broad outline it's operating on:

The original argument sets up a conditional relationship: 3-point --> soft touch. There are two important things to understand about conditionals: 1) they are absolute, not tendencies, and 2) we can flip and negate them to get an equivalent rule: NO soft touch --> NO 3-point. Put those together and you can see that the premise is saying that if someone doesn't have a soft touch, they ABSOLUTELY CANNOT develop the skill of shooting 3-pointers. The next sentence immediately goes against this first premise. It says that since Wilt Chamberlain was a great player, he would have broken this rule and been great at 3-pointers. This cannot be true given the first sentence.

D follows that same general outline. It presents a rule and then shows someone who breaks the rule. However, it's a very loose match to say the least. First, the initial premise isn't an absolute statement like a conditional. Surely it doesn't mean that every single person had to serve. It just means that among those forced to serve, there were both powerful people and poor people. Further, the information in the second sentence is very different from the information in the original. The information that Stevens' father was a federal judge is the only proof we have that he was among "the powerful," but it also shows why he was able to get an exemption. There's no parallel to this in the Chamberlain example. But in any case, since the original didn't set up an absolute requirement, this doesn't have to be false. The original conclusion was actually impossible. All D does is retain the loose underlying idea of a conclusion that seems to go against the premise. None of the other answer choices do that, so it's the best we've got, but I wouldn't call it a correct answer.

EshaFatim · Answer

Answer C.

The flaw in (C) parallels the flaw in the original argument because it draws a conclusion based on an irrelevant characteristic (like the irrelevant expectation from the player in the statement), similar to how the original argument concludes that Wilt Chamberlain could have excelled at three-point shots despite not having the required skill.

EshaFatim · Answer

Bunuel 
Could you please explain the answer? TIA

sparshag007 · Answer

Since in the argument, there is a general association made between soft shooting touch and ability to score a three point shot, and this general correlation has been defied by one person due to some other factor, it is similar to option D where one person has been an   exception   to the general trend which is observed. That is why I went with option D. 
Is my reasoning correct?

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The argument clearly contradicts itself. So look for an answer-choice that contradicts itself in like manner. Choice (A) is not self-contradictory. In fact, it’s a fairly sound argument—eliminate it. Choice (B), on the other hand, is not a very sound argument. The police, though understaffed, may realize the seriousness of the situation and rearrange their priorities. Nevertheless, (B) does not contain a contradiction—eliminate it. Choice (C), though questionable, does not contain a contradiction—eliminate it. Choice (D), however, does contain a contradiction. It begins by stating that both the powerful and the poor had to serve in Vietnam and ends by stating that some powerful people—namely, Stevens—did not have to serve. This is a contradiction, so (D) is probably the answer. Choice (E), like the original argument, is invalid but does not contain a contradiction—eliminate it.  The answer is (D).

In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that

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

In the game of basketball, scoring a three-point shot is a skill that

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