GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 19:55

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2019, 03:24
1
4
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

25% (02:01) correct 75% (02:00) wrong based on 126 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument
above?

(A) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf. It follows that Alex is not in the chess club.
(B) Isabella must be a contented baby. She smiles a great deal and hardly ever cries, like all happy people.
(C) Growth in industry is not a good thing for our town. Although the economy might improve, the pollution would be unbearable.
(D) Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
(E) There is usually more traffic at this time of day unless it is a holiday. But since today is not a holiday, it is surprising that there is so little traffic.

_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Intern
Joined: 28 Sep 2018
Posts: 6
Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2019, 07:51
I go with D

X IS NOT GOOD, GOOD IS NOT Y, X IS Y

Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.

Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund -- most dachshunds hunt poorly(NOT WELL) --- for he(Sarah’s dog) hunts very well
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2019, 23:12
1
1
Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Type- similar reasoning
The stimulus contains 1 conclusion and 2 premises
Conclusion- Wealth is not a good thing
Premises- i. good things cause no harm at all
ii. wealth is often harmful to people

(A) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf. It follows that Alex is not in the chess club.- Correct; similar reasoning here
no one in the chess club loves to golf ---> good things cause no harm at all
Alex loves to golf ---> wealth is often harmful to people
Conclusions- Alex is not in the chess club --> Wealth is not a good thing
(B) Isabella must be a contented baby. She smiles a great deal and hardly ever cries, like all happy people. - incorrect; the premises in this choice are logically different and the reasoning in this answer choice is not logically valid
(C) Growth in industry is not a good thing for our town. Although the economy might improve, the pollution would be unbearable. - incorrect; This conclusion is based on cost-benefit analysis rather than an additive inference from logical premises.
(D) Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.- incorrect; 'most' is an issue here
“Most dachshunds hunt poorly” --- maybe some dachshunds hunt well
Sarah’s dog hunts well does not prevent the possibility that Sarah’s dog is a dachshund
(E) There is usually more traffic at this time of day unless it is a holiday. But since today is not a holiday, it is surprising that there is so little traffic. - incorrect; The second sentence is
essentially a restatement of the first sentence: If it is not a holiday, there should be more traffic. It is not a holiday today, so there should be more traffic.

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 163
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2019, 12:32

Conclusion:Wealth is not a good thing
Premise: for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.
Explanation: Even if Wealth is not harmful to someone ( as presented by often) it is still not a good thing.

(A) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf. It follows that Alex is not in the chess club.
Conclusion:Alex is not in chess club
Premise: Alex loves to golf and no one in chess club loves to golf.
Explanation: There is no ambiguity here left by the argument. Its black and white ( No grey or intersection). Either Alex is in chess club or he is not. This looks ambiguous.

(D) Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
Conclusion: Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund
Premise:for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
Explanation: Even if Some dachshund is a good hunter ( as presented by most) it is still possible that Sarah's Dog is not a dachshund. Honestly this looks more reasonable than A.

Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2019, 22:59

Kaplan Official Soultion

If a stimulus offers proper logic, so must its parallel example.
The logic might be easier to see if you lay it out like so:
Good things cause no harm.
Wealth causes harm.
Therefore, wealth is not a good thing.

That’s a proper and simple syllogism, one directly echoed by (A), which you can also rearrange:
Chess club members do not love to golf.
Alex loves to golf.
Therefore, Alex is not in the chess club.

Both of these hold up well under logical scrutiny.

(B) The structure deviates first of all because it’s proceeding to a positive conclusion, not a negative one; second, it deviates because it includes more pieces of evidence than does the stimulus; and third, it deviates because there’s a shift (from “happy people” to “contented babies”) that the stimulus doesn’t contain.

(C) The conclusion is parallel, but the evidence here is simply that a negative (unbearable pollution) outweighs a possible positive (improved economy). That’s not how the wealth argument runs.

(D) Although the stimulus and (A) are proper logic, (D) commits a logical flaw, and “Most dachshunds hunt poorly” is the culprit. Because it leaves open the possibility that Sarah’s dog is one of a minority of dachshunds that don’t hunt poorly, (D) is wrong in concluding so forcefully that her dog isn’t a dachshund. A faulty logic choice cannot parallel a proper-logic stimulus. (Note that if the stimulus’s conclusion read “Most good things cause no harm,” (D) would be parallel and correct.)

(E) The right answer has to have a strong conclusion that’s parallel to “Wealth is not a good thing.” The conclusion “it is surprising that…” just won’t cut it.
Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument
above?

(A) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf. It follows that Alex is not in the chess club.
(B) Isabella must be a contented baby. She smiles a great deal and hardly ever cries, like all happy people.
(C) Growth in industry is not a good thing for our town. Although the economy might improve, the pollution would be unbearable.
(D) Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
(E) There is usually more traffic at this time of day unless it is a holiday. But since today is not a holiday, it is surprising that there is so little traffic.

_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 163
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2019, 23:08

Kaplan Official Soultion

If a stimulus offers proper logic, so must its parallel example.
The logic might be easier to see if you lay it out like so:
Good things cause no harm.
Wealth causes harm.
Therefore, wealth is not a good thing.

That’s a proper and simple syllogism, one directly echoed by (A), which you can also rearrange:
Chess club members do not love to golf.
Alex loves to golf.
Therefore, Alex is not in the chess club.

Both of these hold up well under logical scrutiny.

(B) The structure deviates first of all because it’s proceeding to a positive conclusion, not a negative one; second, it deviates because it includes more pieces of evidence than does the stimulus; and third, it deviates because there’s a shift (from “happy people” to “contented babies”) that the stimulus doesn’t contain.

(C) The conclusion is parallel, but the evidence here is simply that a negative (unbearable pollution) outweighs a possible positive (improved economy). That’s not how the wealth argument runs.

(D) Although the stimulus and (A) are proper logic, (D) commits a logical flaw, and “Most dachshunds hunt poorly” is the culprit. Because it leaves open the possibility that Sarah’s dog is one of a minority of dachshunds that don’t hunt poorly, (D) is wrong in concluding so forcefully that her dog isn’t a dachshund. A faulty logic choice cannot parallel a proper-logic stimulus. (Note that if the stimulus’s conclusion read “Most good things cause no harm,” (D) would be parallel and correct.)

(E) The right answer has to have a strong conclusion that’s parallel to “Wealth is not a good thing.” The conclusion “it is surprising that…” just won’t cut it.
Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument
above?

(A) Alex loves to golf, and no one in the chess club loves to golf. It follows that Alex is not in the chess club.
(B) Isabella must be a contented baby. She smiles a great deal and hardly ever cries, like all happy people.
(C) Growth in industry is not a good thing for our town. Although the economy might improve, the pollution would be unbearable.
(D) Sarah’s dog is not a dachshund, for he hunts very well, and most dachshunds hunt poorly.
(E) There is usually more traffic at this time of day unless it is a holiday. But since today is not a holiday, it is surprising that there is so little traffic.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2019, 23:14
I am assuming you are asking with respect to Option (D) where this question arises.

There is the subtle yet clear difference between "X does Y often" and "X does Y", the later is absolute while the former leaves a chance for some X to not cause Y.

Let me explain with an example -
Most Chinese men are not tall. Jackie is a Chinese man. Jackie is not tall. Flawed - what if Jackie is a one-off or rare exception? The tallest man in the world was once from China ( If I am not wrong)

Chinese men are not tall. Jackie is a Chinese man. Jackie is not tall. Airtight logic. The first statement is the premise on which we can correctly conclude the last statement.

So the question stem gives us airtight logic whereas option (D) gives us flawed logic and hence they cannot be parallel. Hope it clears.
Mudit27021988 wrote:

Posted from my mobile device

_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Posts: 163
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2019, 23:19
I am assuming you are asking with respect to Option (D) where this question arises.

There is the subtle yet clear difference between "X does Y often" and "X does Y", the later is absolute while the former leaves a chance for some X to not cause Y.

Let me explain with an example -
Most Chinese men are not tall. Jackie is a Chinese man. Jackie is not tall. Flawed - what if Jackie is a one-off or rare exception? The tallest man in the world was once from China ( If I am not wrong)

Chinese men are not tall. Jackie is a Chinese man. Jackie is not tall. Airtight logic. The first statement is the premise on which we can correctly conclude the last statement.

So the question stem gives us airtight logic whereas option (D) gives us flawed logic and hence they cannot be parallel. Hope it clears.
Mudit27021988 wrote:

Posted from my mobile device

Thanks is for your quick comment. My concern is with the question stem, not with the option D.

As you correctly mentioned there is subtle yet clear difference between X often does Y and X does Y. The question stem says

Wealth is often harmful to people. And in OE we say wealth is harmful to people.
Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2019, 23:28
Let us ask what experts have to say about this. I agree with the OE but at the same time, I can see where you are coming from. LSAT formal logic questions can be confusing at times but I have 100% faith in the OA as this is an official question.

_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Re: Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet   [#permalink] 05 Feb 2019, 23:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by