Joshua Smith’s new novel was criticized by the book editor for The Dai

Question

Joshua Smith’s new novel was criticized by the book editor for The Daily Standard as implausible. That criticism, like so many other criticisms from the same source in the past, is completely unwarranted, as anyone who has actually read the novel would agree. Each one of the incidents in which Smith’s hero gets involved is the kind of incident that could very well have happened to someone or other.

Which one of the following is the most serious error of reasoning in the argument?

(A) It relies on the assumption that a criticism can legitimately by dismissed as unwarranted if it is offended by someone who had previously displayed questionable judgment.

(B) It ignores the fact that people can agree about something even though what they agree about is not the case.

(C) It calls into question the intellectual integrity of the critic in order to avoid having to address the grounds on which the criticism is based.

(D) It takes for granted that a whole story will have a given characteristics if each of its parts has that characteristics.

(E) It attempts to justify its conclusion by citing reasons that most people would find plausible only if they were already convinced that the conclusion was true.

Jai19 · Accepted Answer

Here is my explanation why I chose option D:

JS novel was criticized for being implausible by a Book Editor. Novel readers and the writer of argument would agree that the criticism is unwarranted because "each incident in novel is plausible"

Pre-thinking: Each part of a novel may be plausible but entire novel may be implausible.
Pre-thinking points to option D.

A : offended can't be inferred

B : seems vague

C : intellectual integrity not questioned

E : conclusion of novel not discussed

D : inline with pre-thinking

Would love kudos (have none of them as of now

)

thelastskybender · Answer

Premise : Each one of the incidents in which Smith’s hero gets involved is the kind of incident that could very well have happened to someone or other
 Conclusion : That criticism (new novel = implausible) is completely unwarranted.
 
 The gap in this argument is that the author is assuming that the incidents in which Smith’s hero is involved are the only factors that could decide the plausibility of the novel. What if the story of the novel is unreasonable? What if the incidents in which other characters of the novel are involved in are implausible? Option D calls this very assumption into the question.

KarishmaB · Answer

Context: The editor called the new novel implausible. Premises: Each one of the incidents in which the hero gets involved is the kind of incident that could very well have happened to someone or other. Conclusion: The editor’s criticism is unwarranted. What is the flaw in the logic of the author? He says that since each incident could have happened, the plot is not implausible i.e. the entire story could have taken place. A bit of pre-thinking will help us see that just because each incident could have happened, doesn’t mean the whole story could have taken place. Perhaps all the incidents could not have happened together, in the given sequence and/or to the same person. Let’s look at the options now. (A) It relies on the assumption that a criticism can legitimately be dismissed as unwarranted if it is offered by someone who had previously displayed questionable judgment. The author does not rely on the premise that since the editor displayed questionable judgment earlier, this judgment is questionable too. He only mentions that the editor has displayed questionable judgment earlier too. His conclusion depends on the premise that each incident could have happened to someone. (B) It ignores the fact that people can agree about something even though what they agree about is not the case. It doesn’t talk about people agreeing. The argument is only about whether the story is plausible. (C) It calls into question the intellectual integrity of the critic in order to avoid having to address the grounds on which the criticism is based. He does address the grounds on which the criticism is based. The grounds are that it is implausible. He addresses it by saying that each event could have happened to someone. (D) It takes for granted that a whole story will have a given characteristics if each of its parts has that characteristics. Correct. As discussed before, he assumes that just because each incident could have happened, the whole story could have taken place. So he assumes that what is true for all the parts will be true for the whole. (E) It attempts to justify its conclusion by citing reasons that most people would find plausible only if they were already convinced that the conclusion was true. No such reasoning is involved in the argument. Answer (D) Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

Taidaishar · Answer

Conclusion: That criticism, like so many other criticisms from the same source in the past, is completely unwarranted, as anyone who has actually read the novel would agree.

Reasoning: Each one of the incidents in which Smith’s hero gets involved is the kind of incident that could very well have happened to someone or other.

Task: determine the most serious  error of reasoning  in the argument. Important to note that you're to find the error in the reasoning, not the conclusion.

(A) It relies on the assumption that a criticism can legitimately be dismissed as unwarranted if it is offered by someone who had previously displayed questionable judgment. We're supposed to find the error in the reasoning, not the conclusion.  Rejected .

(B) It ignores the fact that people can agree about something even though what they agree about is not the case. "Agreeing to disagree" - this is far out of the argument's scope.  Rejected .

(C) It calls into question the intellectual integrity of the critic in order to avoid having to address the grounds on which the criticism is based. The grounds were actually addressed.  Rejected .

(D) It takes for granted that a whole story will have a given characteristics if each of its parts has that characteristics. Addresses the reasoning - just because its incidents inhibited a specific characteristic, we can't generalize that for the story in its entirety.  Correct .

(E) It attempts to justify its conclusion by citing reasons that most people would find plausible only if they were already convinced that the conclusion was true. Not really, well out scope, and has nothing to do with the reasoning.  Rejected .

Joshua Smith’s new novel was criticized by the book editor for The Dai

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Joshua Smith’s new novel was criticized by the book editor for The Dai

Prep Toolkit

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