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!
10 Aug 2025, 22:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
60% (01:43) correct
40%
(01:54)
wrong
based on 245
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Computer Crimes Detective: A suspect monitored by our team was witnessed logging into Website X. Soon thereafter, Website X crashed due to a Trojan virus attack, causing damages estimated at millions of dollars. The same suspect also logged into Website Y. An hour after the suspect signed out of Website Y, it was attacked by the same virus and, subsequently, crashed. This strongly suggests that the suspect is either a hacker who is using this virus to shut websites down, or an unwitting user infected with the virus.
A major flaw in the detective's argument above is that
(A) the detective overlooks the fact that during the second attack, the suspect had already been disconnected
(B) the detective ignores the possibility that two different people could have used the same computer
(C) the detective confuses the person who wrote the virus with the person who deployed it
(D) the detective connects the cases of Websites X and Y and supposes that a pattern exists
(E) the detective ignores the possibility that other people may have also been logged into the websites the same time that the suspect was
A major flaw in the detective's argument above is that
(A) the detective overlooks the fact that during the second attack, the suspect had already been disconnected
(B) the detective ignores the possibility that two different people could have used the same computer
(C) the detective confuses the person who wrote the virus with the person who deployed it
(D) the detective connects the cases of Websites X and Y and supposes that a pattern exists
(E) the detective ignores the possibility that other people may have also been logged into the websites the same time that the suspect was
21 Aug 2025, 07:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
OPT D:This is not the flaw. It’s legitimate reasoning to notice a pattern when two different sites are attacked in the same way after the same suspect logs in. That’s exactly why suspicion is raised. The flaw is not in seeing a pattern—it’s in ignoring alternative explanations. ELIMINATE
OPT E : The detective assumes that the suspect’s logins are the only plausible link to the crashes, but ignores that other people might also have been logged into the same websites at the same times. If someone else could have been responsible for deploying the virus (or someone else’s infected machine caused the crash), the suspect’s presence is merely coincidental and does not support the detective’s either/or conclusion. CORRECT
OPT E : The detective assumes that the suspect’s logins are the only plausible link to the crashes, but ignores that other people might also have been logged into the same websites at the same times. If someone else could have been responsible for deploying the virus (or someone else’s infected machine caused the crash), the suspect’s presence is merely coincidental and does not support the detective’s either/or conclusion. CORRECT
07 Sep 2025, 11:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Computer Crimes Detective: A suspect monitored by our team was witnessed logging into Website X. Soon thereafter, Website X crashed due to a Trojan virus attack, causing damages estimated at millions of dollars. The same suspect also logged into Website Y. An hour after the suspect signed out of Website Y, it was attacked by the same virus and, subsequently, crashed. This strongly suggests that the suspect is either a hacker who is using this virus to shut websites down, or an unwitting user infected with the virus.
A major flaw in the detective's argument above is that
(A) the detective overlooks the fact that during the second attack, the suspect had already been disconnected
Incorrect.
This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or in its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1-4 are premises, citing facts. Sentence 5 is the conclusion since it incorporates the detective's theory about the case:
Premise A: the suspect logged into Website X
+
Premise B: Website X crashed because of a virus
+
Premise C: the suspect logged into Website Y
+
Premise D: an hour after the suspect signed out of Y, it too crashed because of the same virus
≠
Conclusion: this particular suspect either purposely or accidentally loaded the virus into the sites
The fact that the second attack ensued an hour after the suspect had signed out does not constitute a logical flaw since the time of infection and the time of activation are not necessarily the same.
Nonetheless, there is definitely a flaw in the detective's argument. As always with Argument Flaw Questions, it can be found by analyzing the way the detective arrives at the conclusion. Look for an assumption made by the detective which isn't necessarily true.
(B) the detective ignores the possibility that two different people could have used the same computer
Incorrect.
This answer choice challenges the validity of the premises by raising the possibility that the suspect in the first case is not the same person as the one involved in the second case. However, we never question the premise(s) in Critical Reasoning questions. The premises are the factual basis we accept as true. If the argument is flawed, the flaw exists in the argument's conclusion or in an assumption underlying the conclusion. If the premises state it is the same suspect, it is enough to eliminate this answer choice.
This is a clear case of content vs. logic in Critical Reasoning questions. Knowing more about computers does not help you solve the question. On the contrary, it makes incorrect and irrelevant answer choices seem more appealing.
Anyway, there is definitely a flaw in the detective's argument. As always with Argument Flaw Questions, it can be found by analyzing the way the detective arrives at the conclusion. Look for an assumption made by the detective which isn't necessarily true.
(C) the detective confuses the person who wrote the virus with the person who deployed it
Incorrect.
Neither the conclusion nor the premises say anything about the person who wrote the virus. This topic is out of the scope of the argument. As with all Argument Flaw Questions, the flaw can be found by analyzing the way the detective arrives at the conclusion. Look for an assumption made by the detective which isn't necessarily true.
(D) the detective connects the cases of Websites X and Y and supposes that a pattern exists
Incorrect.
The cases of Websites X and Y share two similar characteristics:
1. They were both attacked and shut-down by the same virus
2. The same suspect logged into both of them
This already constitutes a pattern, and therefore there is nothing flawed about the way the detective connected these facts. However, the detective arrives at the conclusion that this particular suspect is the one who transferred the virus (whether intentionally or unwittingly).
This conclusion presupposes something that is not necessarily correct. Where's the flaw in the detective's logic?
(E) the detective ignores the possibility that other people may have also been logged into the websites the same time that the suspect was
The detective has her eye on the suspect since the suspect logged into both websites around the time of the attacks. However, the detective's conclusion is that this particular suspect is the one who transferred the virus whereas this could have been done by anyone who was logged into the websites at the time, and is either a hacker or an unwitting infected user. The detective arrives at this conclusion based only on the fact that the suspect's visits occurred soon before or after the attacks. Therein lies the flaw in her argument.
Computer Crimes Detective: A suspect monitored by our team was witnessed logging into Website X. Soon thereafter, Website X crashed due to a Trojan virus attack, causing damages estimated at millions of dollars. The same suspect also logged into Website Y. An hour after the suspect signed out of Website Y, it was attacked by the same virus and, subsequently, crashed. This strongly suggests that the suspect is either a hacker who is using this virus to shut websites down, or an unwitting user infected with the virus.
A major flaw in the detective's argument above is that
(A) the detective overlooks the fact that during the second attack, the suspect had already been disconnected
Incorrect.
This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or in its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1-4 are premises, citing facts. Sentence 5 is the conclusion since it incorporates the detective's theory about the case:
Premise A: the suspect logged into Website X
+
Premise B: Website X crashed because of a virus
+
Premise C: the suspect logged into Website Y
+
Premise D: an hour after the suspect signed out of Y, it too crashed because of the same virus
≠
Conclusion: this particular suspect either purposely or accidentally loaded the virus into the sites
The fact that the second attack ensued an hour after the suspect had signed out does not constitute a logical flaw since the time of infection and the time of activation are not necessarily the same.
Nonetheless, there is definitely a flaw in the detective's argument. As always with Argument Flaw Questions, it can be found by analyzing the way the detective arrives at the conclusion. Look for an assumption made by the detective which isn't necessarily true.
(B) the detective ignores the possibility that two different people could have used the same computer
Incorrect.
This answer choice challenges the validity of the premises by raising the possibility that the suspect in the first case is not the same person as the one involved in the second case. However, we never question the premise(s) in Critical Reasoning questions. The premises are the factual basis we accept as true. If the argument is flawed, the flaw exists in the argument's conclusion or in an assumption underlying the conclusion. If the premises state it is the same suspect, it is enough to eliminate this answer choice.
This is a clear case of content vs. logic in Critical Reasoning questions. Knowing more about computers does not help you solve the question. On the contrary, it makes incorrect and irrelevant answer choices seem more appealing.
Anyway, there is definitely a flaw in the detective's argument. As always with Argument Flaw Questions, it can be found by analyzing the way the detective arrives at the conclusion. Look for an assumption made by the detective which isn't necessarily true.
(C) the detective confuses the person who wrote the virus with the person who deployed it
Incorrect.
Neither the conclusion nor the premises say anything about the person who wrote the virus. This topic is out of the scope of the argument. As with all Argument Flaw Questions, the flaw can be found by analyzing the way the detective arrives at the conclusion. Look for an assumption made by the detective which isn't necessarily true.
(D) the detective connects the cases of Websites X and Y and supposes that a pattern exists
Incorrect.
The cases of Websites X and Y share two similar characteristics:
1. They were both attacked and shut-down by the same virus
2. The same suspect logged into both of them
This already constitutes a pattern, and therefore there is nothing flawed about the way the detective connected these facts. However, the detective arrives at the conclusion that this particular suspect is the one who transferred the virus (whether intentionally or unwittingly).
This conclusion presupposes something that is not necessarily correct. Where's the flaw in the detective's logic?
(E) the detective ignores the possibility that other people may have also been logged into the websites the same time that the suspect was
The detective has her eye on the suspect since the suspect logged into both websites around the time of the attacks. However, the detective's conclusion is that this particular suspect is the one who transferred the virus whereas this could have been done by anyone who was logged into the websites at the time, and is either a hacker or an unwitting infected user. The detective arrives at this conclusion based only on the fact that the suspect's visits occurred soon before or after the attacks. Therein lies the flaw in her argument.
