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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
GmatStuck
Joined: 15 Sep 2021
Last visit: 03 Feb 2026
Posts: 59
Given Kudos: 15
Concentration: Finance
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Haas '24 Wharton '24 Yale '24
Products:
07 Feb 2025, 17:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
83% (01:24) correct
17%
(01:25)
wrong
based on 184
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Community organizer: Before last year’s community cleanup, only 77 of the local residents signed up to participate, but then well over 100 actually participated. This year, 85 residents have signed up to participate. Since our community cleanup will be a success if we have at least 100 participants, we can be confident that this year’s cleanup will be a success.
The reasoning in the community organizer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) generalizes about the outcome of an event based on a single observation of a similar situation
(B) takes for granted that people who participated in last year’s cleanup will participate this year
(C) confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with one that is sufficient for that outcome
(D) overlooks the possibility that the cleanup will attract participants who are not residents in the community
(E) defines a term in such a way as to ensure that whatever the outcome, it will be considered a positive outcome
The reasoning in the community organizer’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) generalizes about the outcome of an event based on a single observation of a similar situation
(B) takes for granted that people who participated in last year’s cleanup will participate this year
(C) confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with one that is sufficient for that outcome
(D) overlooks the possibility that the cleanup will attract participants who are not residents in the community
(E) defines a term in such a way as to ensure that whatever the outcome, it will be considered a positive outcome
05 Mar 2025, 03:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Correct Answer:
(A) generalizes about the outcome of an event based on a single observation of a similar situation
Explanation:
The argument assumes that because more people participated than signed up last year, the same pattern will hold this year. However, this conclusion is drawn based on just one past event, which is a weak basis for a general rule. Just because more than 100 people participated last year does not guarantee the same will happen this year. This is a classic case of hasty generalization—drawing a broad conclusion from a single instance.
Eliminating Wrong Options:
(B) takes for granted that people who participated in last year’s cleanup will participate this year
Elimination Reason: The argument does not assume that the exact same people will participate this year. It only assumes that more people will show up than signed up, which is a different kind of assumption.
(C) confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with one that is sufficient for that outcome
Elimination Reason: This flaw would involve incorrectly treating something that is necessary for success as if it guarantees success. However, the argument’s flaw is not about necessity vs. sufficiency—it is about predicting future behavior from a single past instance.
(D) overlooks the possibility that the cleanup will attract participants who are not residents in the community
Elimination Reason: The argument does not assume that only residents can participate. Even if non-residents participated, it wouldn’t undermine the reasoning—what matters is whether at least 100 people show up, not their residency status.
(E) defines a term in such a way as to ensure that whatever the outcome, it will be considered a positive outcome
Elimination Reason: The organizer does define "success" as having at least 100 participants, but they do not manipulate the definition to ensure that the event will be a success no matter what. If fewer than 100 people showed up, by their own definition, it would be a failure.
(A) generalizes about the outcome of an event based on a single observation of a similar situation
Explanation:
The argument assumes that because more people participated than signed up last year, the same pattern will hold this year. However, this conclusion is drawn based on just one past event, which is a weak basis for a general rule. Just because more than 100 people participated last year does not guarantee the same will happen this year. This is a classic case of hasty generalization—drawing a broad conclusion from a single instance.
Eliminating Wrong Options:
(B) takes for granted that people who participated in last year’s cleanup will participate this year
Elimination Reason: The argument does not assume that the exact same people will participate this year. It only assumes that more people will show up than signed up, which is a different kind of assumption.
(C) confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with one that is sufficient for that outcome
Elimination Reason: This flaw would involve incorrectly treating something that is necessary for success as if it guarantees success. However, the argument’s flaw is not about necessity vs. sufficiency—it is about predicting future behavior from a single past instance.
(D) overlooks the possibility that the cleanup will attract participants who are not residents in the community
Elimination Reason: The argument does not assume that only residents can participate. Even if non-residents participated, it wouldn’t undermine the reasoning—what matters is whether at least 100 people show up, not their residency status.
(E) defines a term in such a way as to ensure that whatever the outcome, it will be considered a positive outcome
Elimination Reason: The organizer does define "success" as having at least 100 participants, but they do not manipulate the definition to ensure that the event will be a success no matter what. If fewer than 100 people showed up, by their own definition, it would be a failure.
Moderators:
