Last visit was: 14 Dec 2024, 02:52 It is currently 14 Dec 2024, 02:52
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Gladiator59
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 639
Own Kudos:
2,287
 []
Given Kudos: 174
Status:It always seems impossible until it's done.
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Products:
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Posts: 639
Kudos: 2,287
 []
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
12
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
pranav0073
Joined: 28 Sep 2018
Last visit: 30 Apr 2019
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
1
 []
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 4
Kudos: 1
 []
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 2,079
Own Kudos:
9,310
 []
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
Posts: 2,079
Kudos: 9,310
 []
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gladiator59

Can you please help explain the OA.

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.

Your views would be helpful.
User avatar
Gladiator59
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 639
Own Kudos:
2,287
 []
Given Kudos: 174
Status:It always seems impossible until it's done.
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Products:
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Posts: 639
Kudos: 2,287
 []
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Kaplan Official Soultion


Official Answer - A
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.
Gladiator59
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.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gladiator59

Kaplan Official Soultion


Official Answer - A
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.
Gladiator59
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.

Gladiator59 why do we undermine often here? Why are we writing wealth causes harm instead of wealth often causes harm? Can you please help explain?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Gladiator59
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 639
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 174
Status:It always seems impossible until it's done.
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Products:
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Posts: 639
Kudos: 2,287
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

Gladiator59 why do we undermine often here? Why are we writing wealth causes harm instead of wealth often causes harm? Can you please help explain?

Posted from my mobile device
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gladiator59
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

Gladiator59 why do we undermine often here? Why are we writing wealth causes harm instead of wealth often causes harm? Can you please help explain?

Posted from my mobile device

Gladiator59.

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.
User avatar
Gladiator59
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 639
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 174
Status:It always seems impossible until it's done.
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Products:
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Posts: 639
Kudos: 2,287
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. :-)

Tagging VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 17,990
Own Kudos:
Posts: 17,990
Kudos: 902
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7163 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts