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 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 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 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.
02 Dec 2025, 07:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
81% (01:45) correct
19%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 72
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Science writer: Lemaitre argued that the universe began with the explosion of a “primeval atom,” a singular point of infinite gravity in space and time. If this is correct, our current observations should reveal galaxies accelerating away from one another. This is precisely what we observe. Yet because there is another theory—the oscillating universe theory—that makes exactly this same prediction, Lemaitre’s theory must be considered inadequate.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the science writer’s reasoning?
(A) The conclusion is derived partly from assertions attributed to a purported expert whose credibility is not established.
(B) The conclusion is based on a shift in meaning of a key term from one part of the argument to another part.
(C) The science writer takes for granted the existence of a causal connection between observed phenomena.
(D) The science writer fails to see that one theory’s correctly predicting observed data cannot itself constitute evidence against an alternative theory that also does this.
(E) The science writer presumes, without providing justification, that there are only two possible explanations for the phenomena in question.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the science writer’s reasoning?
(A) The conclusion is derived partly from assertions attributed to a purported expert whose credibility is not established.
(B) The conclusion is based on a shift in meaning of a key term from one part of the argument to another part.
(C) The science writer takes for granted the existence of a causal connection between observed phenomena.
(D) The science writer fails to see that one theory’s correctly predicting observed data cannot itself constitute evidence against an alternative theory that also does this.
(E) The science writer presumes, without providing justification, that there are only two possible explanations for the phenomena in question.
03 Dec 2025, 12:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Lemaitre’s theory (Big Bang–type idea) predicts galaxies accelerating away from each other. We observe exactly that. But there’s another theory (oscillating universe) that also predicts the same observation. Therefore, Lemaitre’s theory must be considered inadequate.
Identify the reasoning flaw
The writer’s logic seems to be:
If Lemaitre’s theory were adequate, its predictions would be uniquely confirmed by the observations. Since another theory also predicts the same thing, Lemaitre’s theory is inadequate. But that’s flawed: an observation can support multiple theories. Observational support for one doesn’t make another “inadequate” unless the evidence is supposed to distinguish them, which it doesn’t here.
The fact that a rival theory predicts the same data does not make Lemaitre’s theory inadequate; it just means this observation doesn’t decide between them. Both could still be adequate explanations.
Eliminate the answer choices
(A) No appeal to expert credibility here so irrelevant.
(B) No shift in meaning of a key term identified, irrelevant.
(C) Takes for granted causal connection, not the main flaw; the issue isn’t causation, it’s equating non-uniqueness with inadequacy.
(D) Yes, failing to see that correct prediction by Theory B doesn’t itself constitute evidence against Theory A. That’s exactly the flaw: thinking shared predictive success undermines one theory’s adequacy.
(E) No, the writer doesn’t presume only two explanations; even if there were more, the logic would still be flawed in the same way.
treating “another theory also predicts this” as a reason to deem the first theory “inadequate.” But adequacy isn’t judged by uniqueness of predictions, it’s judged by whether predictions match data (which they do). The writer wrongly concludes inadequacy from non-uniqueness.
Answer: D
Identify the reasoning flaw
The writer’s logic seems to be:
If Lemaitre’s theory were adequate, its predictions would be uniquely confirmed by the observations. Since another theory also predicts the same thing, Lemaitre’s theory is inadequate. But that’s flawed: an observation can support multiple theories. Observational support for one doesn’t make another “inadequate” unless the evidence is supposed to distinguish them, which it doesn’t here.
The fact that a rival theory predicts the same data does not make Lemaitre’s theory inadequate; it just means this observation doesn’t decide between them. Both could still be adequate explanations.
Eliminate the answer choices
(A) No appeal to expert credibility here so irrelevant.
(B) No shift in meaning of a key term identified, irrelevant.
(C) Takes for granted causal connection, not the main flaw; the issue isn’t causation, it’s equating non-uniqueness with inadequacy.
(D) Yes, failing to see that correct prediction by Theory B doesn’t itself constitute evidence against Theory A. That’s exactly the flaw: thinking shared predictive success undermines one theory’s adequacy.
(E) No, the writer doesn’t presume only two explanations; even if there were more, the logic would still be flawed in the same way.
treating “another theory also predicts this” as a reason to deem the first theory “inadequate.” But adequacy isn’t judged by uniqueness of predictions, it’s judged by whether predictions match data (which they do). The writer wrongly concludes inadequacy from non-uniqueness.
Answer: D
Moderators:
