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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
22 Oct 2010, 13:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer is A
Analysis of an argument: inferring 2nd effect from cause, which has one effect for sure, is not logical. counter argument is 2nd effect must produced by another characteristic of cause. analogy is A causes B and C.
we need parallel argument
A. a person donated $1 million dollars to orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute. from 1st statement we can infer that person had $1 million dollars. 2nd statement is another inference, which is invalid, but it can be true if he is willing to donate money to cancer institute. it's like 2nd statement can be inferred from another characteristic of person not from directly from 1 statement. so A parallels with given argument.
B. radiation caused genetic changes in mother, which led to birth defect in child. conclusion is radioactive material caused birth defect in child. here analogy is A caused B and B caused C. so A caused C. so it is not parallel to given argument
C. uranium possess power. extra info on Uranium is It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. its highly complex structure that produces this power. says A causes B. no 2nd inference
D. it is also like A causes B. no 2nd inference
E. analogy here is A causes B.
Analysis of an argument: inferring 2nd effect from cause, which has one effect for sure, is not logical. counter argument is 2nd effect must produced by another characteristic of cause. analogy is A causes B and C.
we need parallel argument
A. a person donated $1 million dollars to orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute. from 1st statement we can infer that person had $1 million dollars. 2nd statement is another inference, which is invalid, but it can be true if he is willing to donate money to cancer institute. it's like 2nd statement can be inferred from another characteristic of person not from directly from 1 statement. so A parallels with given argument.
B. radiation caused genetic changes in mother, which led to birth defect in child. conclusion is radioactive material caused birth defect in child. here analogy is A caused B and B caused C. so A caused C. so it is not parallel to given argument
C. uranium possess power. extra info on Uranium is It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. its highly complex structure that produces this power. says A causes B. no 2nd inference
D. it is also like A causes B. no 2nd inference
E. analogy here is A causes B.
22 Oct 2010, 14:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer Choice:
A
Explanation:
The logical error that the author describes has the following pattern:
Cause - > Observed Primary Effect
Cause - > Inferred Secondary Effect
The author states that it is illogical to infer the secondary effect.
(A) Socialite -> donates to orphanage (observed primary effect)
Socialite -> volunteers at cancer institute (inferred secondary effect)
This answer choice infers that, since the person has the characteristic of being a socialite, he not only must have donated to the orphanage, but also must have volunteered at a cancer institute. This is the only answer choice that infers a direct, secondary effect for the same cause. It is illogical because the socialite's characteristic of being a donor does not have any other effect except that he donates. Volunteering would require the socialite to have the characteristic of being a volunteer as well.
(B) Radioactive material -> genetic variations and mutations -> birth defect
Radioactive material -> birth defect
This answer choice uses the logic that if A->B->C, then A->C. It simply abridges the chain of causality.
(C) Highly complex structure of uranium atom -> great power
This answer choice infers that a particular characteristic causes the primary effect. It does not introduce a secondary effect.
(D) Civic-minded administration -> More funds to local bands at farmer's festival
This answer choice infers a cause for a particular effect. It does not introduce a secondary effect.
(E) Premise 1: Cool liquid water -> Condenses
Premise 2: Cool some liquids like water -> Condense
Conclusion: Cool all liquids like water -> Condense
This answer choice has the logical error of being too extreme. It infers that since some items in a group act in a certain way, all the items in that group must act in a certain way.
A
Explanation:
The logical error that the author describes has the following pattern:
Cause - > Observed Primary Effect
Cause - > Inferred Secondary Effect
The author states that it is illogical to infer the secondary effect.
(A) Socialite -> donates to orphanage (observed primary effect)
Socialite -> volunteers at cancer institute (inferred secondary effect)
This answer choice infers that, since the person has the characteristic of being a socialite, he not only must have donated to the orphanage, but also must have volunteered at a cancer institute. This is the only answer choice that infers a direct, secondary effect for the same cause. It is illogical because the socialite's characteristic of being a donor does not have any other effect except that he donates. Volunteering would require the socialite to have the characteristic of being a volunteer as well.
(B) Radioactive material -> genetic variations and mutations -> birth defect
Radioactive material -> birth defect
This answer choice uses the logic that if A->B->C, then A->C. It simply abridges the chain of causality.
(C) Highly complex structure of uranium atom -> great power
This answer choice infers that a particular characteristic causes the primary effect. It does not introduce a secondary effect.
(D) Civic-minded administration -> More funds to local bands at farmer's festival
This answer choice infers a cause for a particular effect. It does not introduce a secondary effect.
(E) Premise 1: Cool liquid water -> Condenses
Premise 2: Cool some liquids like water -> Condense
Conclusion: Cool all liquids like water -> Condense
This answer choice has the logical error of being too extreme. It infers that since some items in a group act in a certain way, all the items in that group must act in a certain way.
22 Oct 2010, 14:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer Choice B
Explanation
(A)This is basically an assumption that the author makes about the socialite. Since he donated million dollars to the orphanage, he guesses that he also volunteers at the cancer institute. There is no Cause and effect relationship as described by the author. Eliminate.
(B) Radiation (Cause) leads--> to Genetic mutations/variations (Effect)-->leads to Birth defect (Secondary Effect).
Therefore Radiation (cause) leads -----> Birth defect (Inferred/secondary Effect).
This is making the same logical error as the one described by the author. The author says this is not correct because the inferred effect ie the birth defect must be produced by other characteristics.
This is the Correct Answer.
(C) Complex structure (Cause) leads----> produce great power (Effect)
No secondary or inferred effect of the complex structure is mentioned.
Eliminate
(D)No specific cause and effect relationship is described here, so Eliminate.
(E) Cool water (Cause)---->condenses (Effect)
Cool liquids ----> condenses
ie cool any liquid --> condense
Here the cause changes from “Cooling of water” to “cooling any liquid like water”. This is not similar to the authors description which focuses on one Cause and effect relationship and the observed and secondary effects of the SAME cause. Eliminate.
Explanation
(A)This is basically an assumption that the author makes about the socialite. Since he donated million dollars to the orphanage, he guesses that he also volunteers at the cancer institute. There is no Cause and effect relationship as described by the author. Eliminate.
(B) Radiation (Cause) leads--> to Genetic mutations/variations (Effect)-->leads to Birth defect (Secondary Effect).
Therefore Radiation (cause) leads -----> Birth defect (Inferred/secondary Effect).
This is making the same logical error as the one described by the author. The author says this is not correct because the inferred effect ie the birth defect must be produced by other characteristics.
This is the Correct Answer.
(C) Complex structure (Cause) leads----> produce great power (Effect)
No secondary or inferred effect of the complex structure is mentioned.
Eliminate
(D)No specific cause and effect relationship is described here, so Eliminate.
(E) Cool water (Cause)---->condenses (Effect)
Cool liquids ----> condenses
ie cool any liquid --> condense
Here the cause changes from “Cooling of water” to “cooling any liquid like water”. This is not similar to the authors description which focuses on one Cause and effect relationship and the observed and secondary effects of the SAME cause. Eliminate.
