In order for life to exist on the recently discovered planet P23

Question

In order for life to exist on the recently discovered planet P23, there must be water on the planet’s surface. But there is no water on P23’s surface, so there is no life on planet P23.

The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?

(A) A company must have efficient employees to be successful. And if a company’s employees are knowledgeable and hardworking, then they are probably efficient. Thus, in order for a company to be successful, it must have knowledgeable and hardworking employees.

(B) The fact that the suspect was flustered when questioned by the police might be a result of the suspect’s surprise at being questioned. But if it is, the probability that the suspect is guilty is very low. Thus, the fact that the suspect was flustered is not necessarily a sign that the suspect is guilty.

(C) Oil companies are not buying new drilling equipment. But if they were planning on increasing their drilling, they would be buying new drilling equipment. Thus, oil companies are not planning on increasing their drilling.

(D) The price of real estate in a particular town is increasing. And if the town’s economy were improving, the price of real estate there would increase. Thus, the town’s economy is improving.

(E) The exports of a particular nation have recently decreased. But whenever that nation’s exports decrease, its trade deficit increases. Thus, the nation’s trade deficit has recently increased

saynchalk · Answer

Why is E wrong?

Similar reasoning pattern as C

Bhavesh1291997 · Answer

All seem to be the same. Can you give some explanation?

bekhzod23 · Answer

The argument structure follows as this structure: 
If A , then B
If not A, then not B

Structure in answer choice A. If there is efficiency, there is success. There is efficiency and there will success. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT 'NOT' CONDITION

Answer choice B. It also plays the same role as A.

Answer choice C. The confusion is that it tells the structure A bit differently in such way:
There is not B. 
If A, then B
So, there is not A
Therefore, we should consider the pattern very carefully.

Answer choice D and E are very similar to each other in a way that both of them doesn't provide a 'NOT' conditions

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

bekhzod23  
You have the general idea, but watch the details. The structure of the original argument is this:

If A, then B  (To have life, you need water, so any time there is life, there is water.)
 NOT B, therefore NOT A  (There isn't water on P23, so there isn't life on P23)

Note that this is a VALID argument, not a flawed one. If we know A-->B, we also know NOT B--> NOT A. The argument gives us A-->B and NOT B, and them validly concludes NOT A.

C follows this same logical pattern, despite the difference of order: 
Increasing, then buying. But not buying, so not increasing.

A quick way to eliminate A and B is that they are more complex than the original. A sets up TWO conditionals, and then draws an incorrect conclusion from their combination. B's conclusion is valid, but again it's based on combining two different premises. Also, B's premises are not actual conditionals. They are about what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be true, or what is PROBABLE, so B doesn't match C's focus on what MUST or MUST NOT be true.

D is a flawed argument relying on a classic reversal. Improving--> Increasing. Increasing, therefore Improving. We can't reverse a conditional like that! D would match the valid original if it said "NOT increasing, therefore NOT improving."

E is valid, but just follows the conditional in order. Exp down --> Def up. Exp are down, therefore Def is up. This doesn't rely on negation, so it doesn't have the same structure as the original.

rak08 · Answer

for life > water required
no water > no life

so 
A - not efficient > not knowledgeable & xyz > not successful ( too many links, no direct relationship) hence eliminated
B - The relationship is casual and not firm. "might not necessarily be guilty" eliminated
C - to extract oil > drilling machine, no machine > no inc plans (same pattern) : KEEP
D - The relationship is not visa versa, means if real estate price inc doesnt mean town is improving, it could also mean that inflation is high.
E - same , not visa vera, trade deficit increases = export decrease or IMPORT INCREASE. we can say decrease in export > lead to increase in trade deficit but we cant say trade deficit increased means ONLY BECAUSE EXPORT DEC.

SO C

D3N0 · Answer

In order for life to exist  on the recently discovered planet P23,  there must be water  on the planet’s surface. But  there is no water  on P23’s surface,  so there is no life  on planet P23.
 
Let's take this from a pure logic basis: I hope this helps in clarifying few things.

The pattern here is straightforward: a  "Must type" . That means, there is no doubt that "the only way for life to exist on planet P23 is to have water on the planet's surface.  No other way is possible. Neccesery condition 
 So we need to find the argument that has a similar "Must type" situation.

(A) A company must have efficient employees to be successful. And if a company’s employees are knowledgeable and hardworking, then they are   probably efficient  . Thus, in order for a company to be successful, it must have knowledgeable and hardworking employees. 
 In this, the must chain breaks at the second step, knowledgeable and hardworking employees are probably efficient

(B) The fact that the suspect was flustered when questioned by the police   might   be a result of the suspect’s surprise at being questioned. But if it is, the   probability   that the suspect is guilty is very low. Thus, the fact that the suspect was flustered is   not necessarily a sign   that the suspect is guilty. 
 Again, it is not a Must, and it is providing alternate explanations for something.

(C) Oil companies are not buying new drilling equipment. But if they were planning on increasing their drilling, they would be buying new drilling equipment. Thus, oil companies are not planning on increasing their drilling. 
  Correct: This says that if oil companies were planning they would be buying the drilling equipment, but they are not buying -- > then they must not be planning

(D) The price of real estate in a particular town is increasing. And if the town’s economy were improving, the price of real estate there would increase. Thus, the town’s economy is improving. 
 These are the tricky ones and confuse a lot. This is saying becasue something happned --> it resulted in something else. because if town's economy increases --> reasl estate prices would increase. but the opposite doesn't have to be true. Price of the real estate can increase (there is a possibility) without an improvement in the town's economy.

(E) The exports of a particular nation have recently decreased. But whenever that nation’s exports decrease, its trade deficit increases. Thus, the nation’s trade deficit has recently increased 
 In this one -> this is not a similar structure to the given argument in the question.

In order for life to exist on the recently discovered planet P23

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 order for life to exist on the recently discovered planet P23

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