According to the school's principal, no teacher who refuses

Question

According to the school's principal, no teacher who refuses to participate in the afternoon conÂference was allowed to attend the buffet dinner immediately after the conference. Sanjay, who is one of the school's teachers, is not the sort of perÂson to refuse a buffet dinner; yet I'm certain Sanjay was not at the dinner. I can only conclude that Sanjay refused to participate in the conference.
Which of the following demonstrates a pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
 (A)  All attentive students are rewarded with high grades in school. Alan is not attentive as a student. Therefore, he will not be rewarded with high grades in school.
 (B)  Every person seated in the front row can hear the coach's instructions to his players. Ursula can hear the coach's instructions. Therefore, Ursula must be seated in the front row.
 (C)  Anyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens is either not being truthful or is mistaken about whether he or she has been abducted by aliens. Sandy is always truthÂful. Therefore, she has not been abducted by aliens.
 (D)  Every legislator is in favor of the bill. Martha is not in favor of the bill. Therefore, she must not be a legislator.
 (E)  This sculpture is either priceless or a worthÂless fake. This sculpture is not a worthless fake. Therefore, it is priceless.

 OA some posts below 

Source - lectures by MBAConsult

ranga41 · Answer

Will go with D on this one..

The argument clains the following

Conference then buffet
No buffet then no concerence

In the same line 

legislater then support bill
no bill support then no legislator

I could be wrong....

Arsene_Wenger · Answer

(C) for me on this one. Everyother option can be eliminated except (C), which closely follows the pattern of the stem.

kwasi7 · Answer

D looks like it for me.

capri · Answer

B for me

qpoo · Answer

B

The original logic goes this way:
if X then probably Y, but if not X then surely not Y (or if Y then surely X)

(A) All attentive students are rewarded with high grades in school. Alan is not attentive as a student. Therefore, he will not be rewarded with high grades in school.

almost correct, except, we have Y (being attentive student) X (students are rewarded with high grades) and Z (will be rewarded with high grades, which is in the future)

(B) Every person seated in the front row can hear the coach's instructions to his players. Ursula can hear the coach's instructions. Therefore, Ursula must be seated in the front row.

Y(seated in the front) X (can heard coach)
Ursula can hear coach (X) does not necessarily require that she being
seated in the front (Y)


(C) Anyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens is either not being truthful or is mistaken about whether he or she has been abducted by aliens. Sandy is always truthÂful. Therefore, she has not been abducted by aliens.

(claim been abducted) Y (not being truthful) X (being mistaken) Z
not the same structure as stem

(D) Every legislator is in favor of the bill. Martha is not in favor of the bill. Therefore, she must not be a legislator.

This is not a flawed reasoning.

(E) This sculpture is either priceless or a worthÂless fake. This sculpture is not a worthless fake. Therefore, it is priceless. 

This is not a flawed reasoning. Not similiar logic stucture as stem either.

Arsene_Wenger · Answer

OA ps.

Pauline · Answer

OA  is B.

  gpoo  is a winner! 

Official explanation:
The correct answer is (B).
The original argument boils down to the following: Premise: If a teacher refuses to attend the conferÂence, then the teacher will not attend the buffet. Premise: Sanjay did not attend the buffet. Conclusion: Sanjay refused to attend the conferÂence.
To reveal the argument's structure (and its flawed reaÂsoning), express the argument using symbols: Premise: If A, then B. Premise: X is B. Conclusion: X is A.
This reasoning is fallacious, and choice (B) demonÂstrates the same basic pattern:
Premise: If a person is seated in the front row, then the person can hear the coach. (If A, then B.)
Premise: Ursula can hear the coach. (X is B.) Conclusion: Ursula is seated in the front row. (X is A.)

According to the school's principal, no teacher who refuses

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards