|
|
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.
06 May 2026, 00:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
68% (01:37) correct
32%
(01:54)
wrong
based on 28
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of six individual chameleons concluded that lizards such as chameleons bask in the sun not only for warmth but also to regulate their production of vitamin D. Critics of the study-although correct in observing that its sample size was very small-are wrong to doubt its results. After all, the study's author is well regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years.
The reasoning in the biologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
(B) fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
(C) focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself
(D) fails to demonstrate that the study's critics have relevant expertise
(E) holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics
The reasoning in the biologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
(B) fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
(C) focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself
(D) fails to demonstrate that the study's critics have relevant expertise
(E) holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics
06 May 2026, 04:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of six individual chameleons concluded that lizards such as chameleons bask in the sun not only for warmth but also to regulate their production of vitamin D. Critics of the study-although correct in observing that its sample size was very small-are wrong to doubt its results. After all, the study's author is well regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years.
To be well set up to answer a Logical Flaw question, we can note the conclusion and support and how the argument works.
Conclusion:
Critics of the study-although correct in observing that its sample size was very small-are wrong to doubt its results.
Support:
the study's author is well regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years
An aspect of the argument that may jump out at us is that the evidence that the author of the study is well regarded and has been doing excellent work doesn't really address what causes critics to doubt the results, which is that the sample size was very small.
The reasoning in the biologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
The correct answer will accurately describe an aspect of the argument that is flawed.
(A) takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
The argument does not say anything general about lizards as a whole. It's focused on a study of chameleons.
Eliminate.
(B) fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
It's true that the argument does not explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production.
At the same time, that the argument does not do so does not constitute a flaw since the point of the argument is not to explain that but only to defend the reliability of the study results.
Eliminate.
(C) focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself
This choice accurately describes how the argument is flawed.
After all, the critics' doubt the results because of the small sample size whereas the argument proceeds by presenting only evidence about the study's author.
So, the argument is flawed because the evidence about the study's author doesn't effectively counter the fact about the sample size. After all, even if the study's author is well regarded and does excellent work, it still makes sense to doubt the results of a study with a very small sample size.
Keep.
(D) fails to demonstrate that the study's critics have relevant expertise
Since the argument is against the opinion of the critics, the fact that the argument does not demonstrate that they have expertise is certainly not a flaw.
Eliminate.
(E) holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics
This choice uses carefully chosen wording to sound correct.
We could get the impression that this choice is correct because the author of the argument seems to have a high opinion of the author of the study.
At the same time, this choice is not correct since the argument does not hold the study's author "to a higher standard," meaning, basically, be more demanding of the study's author, than it holds the study's critics.
In fact, holding the study's author to a higher standard would, if anything, make the argument strong, rather than be a flaw. After all, in doing so, the argument would be supporting its point while being demanding of the study's author.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
To be well set up to answer a Logical Flaw question, we can note the conclusion and support and how the argument works.
Conclusion:
Critics of the study-although correct in observing that its sample size was very small-are wrong to doubt its results.
Support:
the study's author is well regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years
An aspect of the argument that may jump out at us is that the evidence that the author of the study is well regarded and has been doing excellent work doesn't really address what causes critics to doubt the results, which is that the sample size was very small.
The reasoning in the biologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
The correct answer will accurately describe an aspect of the argument that is flawed.
(A) takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
The argument does not say anything general about lizards as a whole. It's focused on a study of chameleons.
Eliminate.
(B) fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
It's true that the argument does not explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production.
At the same time, that the argument does not do so does not constitute a flaw since the point of the argument is not to explain that but only to defend the reliability of the study results.
Eliminate.
(C) focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself
This choice accurately describes how the argument is flawed.
After all, the critics' doubt the results because of the small sample size whereas the argument proceeds by presenting only evidence about the study's author.
So, the argument is flawed because the evidence about the study's author doesn't effectively counter the fact about the sample size. After all, even if the study's author is well regarded and does excellent work, it still makes sense to doubt the results of a study with a very small sample size.
Keep.
(D) fails to demonstrate that the study's critics have relevant expertise
Since the argument is against the opinion of the critics, the fact that the argument does not demonstrate that they have expertise is certainly not a flaw.
Eliminate.
(E) holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics
This choice uses carefully chosen wording to sound correct.
We could get the impression that this choice is correct because the author of the argument seems to have a high opinion of the author of the study.
At the same time, this choice is not correct since the argument does not hold the study's author "to a higher standard," meaning, basically, be more demanding of the study's author, than it holds the study's critics.
In fact, holding the study's author to a higher standard would, if anything, make the argument strong, rather than be a flaw. After all, in doing so, the argument would be supporting its point while being demanding of the study's author.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C
06 May 2026, 07:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
Very simple question - let us keep our solution simple as well.
The structure of the passage is - Study -> Outcomes -> Critics -> Disagreement with critics -> Reason for the disagreement.
The question asks us about the vulnerability in the biologist's argument; the only place the biologist argues is when he disagrees with what the critics say.
Because the critics are apparently wrong, since the author of the study has a lot of experience and has been doing excellent work for years, that is the part that I would logically attack. (Biologist's reasoning for the rejection of the objection)
Let's look at each option.
(A) takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
This is done by the author of the study, not our biologist. In fact, this is kind of what the biologist rejects as being the problem, but in itself isn't a logical flaw by the biologist. It's the author's flaw. REJECT.
(B) fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
Not a logical flaw, this is factual - we are looking to find a flaw in the logic and not the contents of the study. REJECT.
(C) focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself
Yes, the primary focus here becomes the author of the study and her achievements. Not the merit of the study itself, which should be compartmentalised separately from the author. KEEP.
(D) fails to demonstrate that the study's critics have relevant expertise
That again isn't a logical flaw, plus the argument never really needs to establish the expertise of the critics themselves because that is an assumption which we can make. REJECT.
(E) holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics
Tricky, but that isn't a logical flaw - it's more of a qualitative flaw by the biologist. Plus, what does higher standard mean? In what context are they put in a higher standard? The biologist can still hold the author at a higher standard than the critics but that doesn't necessarily translate to overlooking problems with the study. REJECT.
The problem in the logic of the passage is simple - it's an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. The author would be correct in her observations because she is experienced in her field and therefore all objections to her study are wrong.
______________________________________________
Aakkash Singh V90 Verbal Expert
I simplify the verbal section!
Book a free tutoring session: my calendar
The structure of the passage is - Study -> Outcomes -> Critics -> Disagreement with critics -> Reason for the disagreement.
The question asks us about the vulnerability in the biologist's argument; the only place the biologist argues is when he disagrees with what the critics say.
Because the critics are apparently wrong, since the author of the study has a lot of experience and has been doing excellent work for years, that is the part that I would logically attack. (Biologist's reasoning for the rejection of the objection)
Let's look at each option.
(A) takes the behavior of chameleons to be generalizable to lizards as a whole
This is done by the author of the study, not our biologist. In fact, this is kind of what the biologist rejects as being the problem, but in itself isn't a logical flaw by the biologist. It's the author's flaw. REJECT.
(B) fails to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D production by basking in the sun
Not a logical flaw, this is factual - we are looking to find a flaw in the logic and not the contents of the study. REJECT.
(C) focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself
Yes, the primary focus here becomes the author of the study and her achievements. Not the merit of the study itself, which should be compartmentalised separately from the author. KEEP.
(D) fails to demonstrate that the study's critics have relevant expertise
That again isn't a logical flaw, plus the argument never really needs to establish the expertise of the critics themselves because that is an assumption which we can make. REJECT.
(E) holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics
Tricky, but that isn't a logical flaw - it's more of a qualitative flaw by the biologist. Plus, what does higher standard mean? In what context are they put in a higher standard? The biologist can still hold the author at a higher standard than the critics but that doesn't necessarily translate to overlooking problems with the study. REJECT.
The problem in the logic of the passage is simple - it's an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. The author would be correct in her observations because she is experienced in her field and therefore all objections to her study are wrong.
______________________________________________
Aakkash Singh V90 Verbal Expert
I simplify the verbal section!
Book a free tutoring session: my calendar
