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.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1308:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 4 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we tackle the most intimidating CR question type: Boldface & "Legalese" questions. If you've ever stared at an answer choice that reads, "The first is a consideration introduced to counter a position that...- May 14
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions..
10 Apr 2011, 23:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
36% (02:04) correct
64%
(01:45)
wrong
based on 16
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing scientific value of discipline. Take, for example, chemistry. It must be considered that many of its landmark results were obtained by alchemists- a group whose superstitions and appeals to magic dominated the early part of chemical theory.
Reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because author:
(a) fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable
(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses.
Reasoning above is most susceptible to criticism because author:
(a) fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable
(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
10 Apr 2011, 23:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
C vs E. I am leaning towards E since flawed and scientific values can go hand in hand. But the author seems to split the difference in order to make the conclusion.
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
vivesomnium
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Last visit: 18 Mar 2018
Posts: 174
Given Kudos: 13
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
11 Apr 2011, 00:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
(a) fails to establish that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable Author doesn’t have to do that – he is saying that blemished origins might mean unscientific discipline- not that unblemished origins will essentially mean scientific value – he doesn’t have to establish that at all for the current argument to hold valid- so this doesn’t weaken or strengthen the present argument
(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned Author criticizes chemistry because of its blemishes origins and doubts its present scientific value. He doesn’t consider the fact that the current theories and practices have changed from those of origins in alchemists- hence his doubting current scientific value is not justified
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration . He is not doing that – he is not using the example to contradict the principle, but to support it.
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect – Similar to A, author doesn’t have to do that essentially – this cant weaken his argument only – he is citing on example – how many examples are sufficient to strengthen is not defined or determinable. So we cant use this logic to criticize his argument.
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses. Author doesn’t do that – he uses discipline in only one sense- a field of study
(b) fails to consider how chemistry's current theories and practices differ from those of the alchemists mentioned Author criticizes chemistry because of its blemishes origins and doubts its present scientific value. He doesn’t consider the fact that the current theories and practices have changed from those of origins in alchemists- hence his doubting current scientific value is not justified
(c) uses example to contradict principle under consideration . He is not doing that – he is not using the example to contradict the principle, but to support it.
(d) does not prove that most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect – Similar to A, author doesn’t have to do that essentially – this cant weaken his argument only – he is citing on example – how many examples are sufficient to strengthen is not defined or determinable. So we cant use this logic to criticize his argument.
(e) uses word "discipline" in two different senses. Author doesn’t do that – he uses discipline in only one sense- a field of study
