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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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 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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
08 Sep 2024, 17:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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:
51% (02:06) correct
49%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 303
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Lawyer: Did Congleton assign the best available graphic artist to the project?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And the best writer?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: In fact, everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?
Witness: That’s true.
Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?
Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the lawyer’s reasoning displayed above EXCEPT:
(A) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
(B) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
(C) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
(D) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
(E) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And the best writer?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: In fact, everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?
Witness: That’s true.
Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?
Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the lawyer’s reasoning displayed above EXCEPT:
(A) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
(B) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
(C) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
(D) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
(E) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team
09 Sep 2024, 01:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Lawyer: Did Congleton assign the best available graphic artist to the project?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And the best writer?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: In fact, everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?
Witness: That’s true.
Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?
Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the lawyer’s reasoning displayed above EXCEPT:
(A) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
(B) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
(C) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
(D) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
(E) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team
As long as we can say that the flaw is plausible we will eliminate the option. Lets undertsand the argument first
Witness agrees that Congleton assigned the best folks for all roles in project. That means there was no gap in competency of individuals assigned.
The lawyer then suddenly accusses the witness was lying when she said earlier that Congleton wanted the project to fail.
That is a big leap right? The two things could co exist i.e. witness speaking truth and congleton hiring best people yet wanting project to fail
For eg I would want to project to fail and I still hire best people because I secretly know that the people I have hired will not be able to work together ergo project is likely to fail
Or I will hire best people but not give them enough time - will they be able to complete the project - most likely no!
We dont need to think examples - just gave so that you can understand the argument better. Now lets go one by one.
(A) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project - If Mr Congleton was forced to hire best people despite his actual desire of wanting the project to fail - the lawyer is wrong and witness right. It is flaw. Eliminate
(B) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail. Lets keep it.
If the project could fail even if Congleton didn't want it to fail then there is no basis to compare whether lawyer is right or witness!
(C) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together. If Mr Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together, his actual desire of wanting the project to fail is correct - the lawyer is wrong and witness right. It is flaw. Eliminate
(D) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
What if the witness is not lying but is just genuinely not able to infer the right things from facts. For eg (i know poor example but still) you are not able to accurately understand some CR concept and gave some reasoning basis your understand can I say you are lying? Maybe you just inferred wrong! Its an honest error. the lawyer is wrong. It is flaw. Eliminate
(E) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team - If Mr Congleton didnt give the best people he hired enough time, his intention to wanting the project to fail is shown clearly - the lawyer is wrong and witness right. It is flaw. Eliminate
Option B
Lawyer: Did Congleton assign the best available graphic artist to the project?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And the best writer?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: In fact, everyone she assigned to work on the project was top notch?
Witness: That’s true.
Lawyer: So, you lied to the court when you said, earlier, that Congleton wanted the project to fail?
Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the lawyer’s reasoning displayed above EXCEPT:
(A) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.
(B) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.
(C) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.
(D) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
(E) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team
As long as we can say that the flaw is plausible we will eliminate the option. Lets undertsand the argument first
Witness agrees that Congleton assigned the best folks for all roles in project. That means there was no gap in competency of individuals assigned.
The lawyer then suddenly accusses the witness was lying when she said earlier that Congleton wanted the project to fail.
That is a big leap right? The two things could co exist i.e. witness speaking truth and congleton hiring best people yet wanting project to fail
For eg I would want to project to fail and I still hire best people because I secretly know that the people I have hired will not be able to work together ergo project is likely to fail
Or I will hire best people but not give them enough time - will they be able to complete the project - most likely no!
We dont need to think examples - just gave so that you can understand the argument better. Now lets go one by one.
(A) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project - If Mr Congleton was forced to hire best people despite his actual desire of wanting the project to fail - the lawyer is wrong and witness right. It is flaw. Eliminate
(B) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail. Lets keep it.
If the project could fail even if Congleton didn't want it to fail then there is no basis to compare whether lawyer is right or witness!
(C) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together. If Mr Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together, his actual desire of wanting the project to fail is correct - the lawyer is wrong and witness right. It is flaw. Eliminate
(D) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.
What if the witness is not lying but is just genuinely not able to infer the right things from facts. For eg (i know poor example but still) you are not able to accurately understand some CR concept and gave some reasoning basis your understand can I say you are lying? Maybe you just inferred wrong! Its an honest error. the lawyer is wrong. It is flaw. Eliminate
(E) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team - If Mr Congleton didnt give the best people he hired enough time, his intention to wanting the project to fail is shown clearly - the lawyer is wrong and witness right. It is flaw. Eliminate
Option B
15 Nov 2024, 22:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer B
Lawyer concludes = Congleton didn’t want the project to fail.
So, the flaw in the lawyer's argument is Congleton wanted / desired the project to fail.
Reason for the flaw in the lawyer's conclusion = Just because Congleton allotted the best resources, which would have guaranteed a successful project does NOT mean she desired / she wanted the project to succeed.
Desire of someone is different from the action they take.
B -
If it takes for granted, then in reality it is the opposite = The project could fail if:
Scenario 1 - Congleton and someone else wanted it to fail.
Scenario 2 - Only someone other than Congleton wanted it to fail (Congleton didn’t want the project to fail).
Since, Scenario-2 supports the lawyer’s conclusion, it can’t support the flaw for sure.
Hence, this is the option which surely doesn’t support the flaw.
A -
If it takes for granted that Congleton was not forced, then in reality, she was forced to select people.
So, the people (candidates) selected were not her choice.
Although she may not have the power to select the candidates, she may very well want / desire to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
C -
So, there is a possibility that people would not work together and Congleton knew about it which would help her motive to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
D -
If it ignores the possibility then there is a possibility that the witness was telling the truth (without knowing the sabotage motive of Congleton).
So, Congleton desired to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
E -
If it ignores the possibility, then there is a possibility that Congleton failed to allot time and resources to the project.
So, Congleton desired to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
Lawyer concludes = Congleton didn’t want the project to fail.
So, the flaw in the lawyer's argument is Congleton wanted / desired the project to fail.
Reason for the flaw in the lawyer's conclusion = Just because Congleton allotted the best resources, which would have guaranteed a successful project does NOT mean she desired / she wanted the project to succeed.
Desire of someone is different from the action they take.
B -
If it takes for granted, then in reality it is the opposite = The project could fail if:
Scenario 1 - Congleton and someone else wanted it to fail.
Scenario 2 - Only someone other than Congleton wanted it to fail (Congleton didn’t want the project to fail).
Since, Scenario-2 supports the lawyer’s conclusion, it can’t support the flaw for sure.
Hence, this is the option which surely doesn’t support the flaw.
A -
If it takes for granted that Congleton was not forced, then in reality, she was forced to select people.
So, the people (candidates) selected were not her choice.
Although she may not have the power to select the candidates, she may very well want / desire to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
C -
So, there is a possibility that people would not work together and Congleton knew about it which would help her motive to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
D -
If it ignores the possibility then there is a possibility that the witness was telling the truth (without knowing the sabotage motive of Congleton).
So, Congleton desired to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
E -
If it ignores the possibility, then there is a possibility that Congleton failed to allot time and resources to the project.
So, Congleton desired to sabotage the project.
This is incorrect as this supports the flaw.
