It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 00:26

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Wk 1, Ch 1. Veritas Prep Essentials Course Winner Announced!

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Ms. Big Fat Panda
Status: Three Down.
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1915

Kudos [?]: 2204 [4], given: 210

Concentration: General Management, Nonprofit
Wk 1, Ch 1. Veritas Prep Essentials Course Winner Announced! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 12:04
4
KUDOS
For instructions on how to register for this competition, please read Bi-Weekly GMAT Challenge. Make sure to read the rules of the competition there before posting on this thread!!

Challenge 1

Question Type: Critical Reasoning
Deadline: Friday, October 22nd 2010 - 3pm Pacific Time
Results announced: Friday October 22nd 2010.
Prize: Veritas Prep Essentials Course!!!

Winner: shamikba

It is not logical to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect. This is not correct because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some other characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.

The error described is that once you derive a cause from a particular effect, you should not infer another effect from that same cause.

Lets break each choice down into cause and effects.

a. The effect is that donor has donated to an orphanage. The cause could be say he is benevolent, or he likes the orphanage or something else. The argument tries to infer a secondary effect that the donor would also volunteer and per the author this suffers from the inference error of inferring a secondary effect from the cause. Hence this choice is correct

b. This is incorrect. The cause here is radiation from the bomb. The primary effect is mutations in the mother. The effect in turn causes a secondary effect of birth defects in the child. Thus you are inferring the secondary effect from the primary effect and not from the cause

c.This is incorrect. Here you are taking two effects and trying to determine/infer a cause that applies to both effects simultaneously. The first effect is that the uranium atom has great power. The second effect is that it is miniscule. Using these two effects a common cause is inferred that the cause of both these effects is the complex structure.

d.This is incorrect. Here a single cause is derived from an effect. Now secondary effect is inferred. The primary effect is that local bands received more funds than ever before. The cause being inferred from this effect is that the administation is more civic minded this year. There is no secondary effect being inferred in this statement

e. This is incorrect. Here you are taking a specific effect and a generalized effect and for each inferring a cause (which happens to be the same). Then you are inferring a secondary effect from this cause.
The specific effect is that water condenses when cooled and the cause inferred is that it is liquid. The second generalized effect is that all liquids condense when cooled, therefore they are liquid. Both these cause effect combinations are used to infer yet another further generalized effect (all liquids like water will condense when cooled)

Kudos [?]: 2204 [4], given: 210

 Veritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes
Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 49

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 51

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 12:24
I will go with B.

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.
Explanation: Looks to me both statements are irrelevant. Donating and volunteering are not results of same effect.

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
Explanation: I will go with this. The effect of radiation causes birth defect in the child. But, there could be another (secondary) causes which support the birth defects.

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
Explanation: so??? Looks to me Not Relevant

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
Explanation: so??? Looks to me Not Relevant
(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.
Explanation: We are concluding here, but that's not asked in the argument.

Cheers!
Ravi

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 51

Current Student
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1837

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 52

Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 12:35

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.
Correct. Because the person donated to orphanage is the only cause and the effect is the money giving part - nothing else.

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
multiple effects so incorrect.

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
Doesn't make sense. there's no cause.

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
doesn't make sense here. they are unrelated.

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.
sample size too small. It is inferring the conclusion based on multiple causes (cooling hundreds of other liquids) not a single cause.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 52

Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Schools: HBS, Yale, Darden, Haas
Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 13:28
I'll go with A. Here the cause known by one special effect is the fact that an anonymous donated a million dollars to the orphanage. Just because the socialite donates, its wrong to infer that he volunteers at the cancer institute, which can be considered as a secondary effect. And going back the cause is known only by one special effect, which is donating to an orphanage. I hope it is so.

B comes close but the structure seem to imply that the cause has more than on special effect by which it is known.

The rest three do not even come close.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 18 [1], given: 0

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 13:34
1
KUDOS
shamikba

The correct choice is A.

The error described is that once you derive a cause from a particular effect, you should not infer another effect from that same cause.

Lets break each choice down into cause and effects.

A. The effect is that donor has donated to an orphanage. The cause could be say he is benevolent, or he likes the orphanage or something else. The argument tries to infer a secondary effect that the donor would also volunteer and per the author this suffers from the inference error of inferring a secondary effect from the cause. Hence this choice is correct

B. This is incorrect. The cause here is radiation from the bomb. The primary effect is mutations in the mother. The effect in turn causes a secondary effect of birth defects in the child. Thus you are inferring the secondary effect from the primary effect and not from the cause

C.This is incorrect. Here you are taking two effects and trying to determine/infer a cause that applies to both effects simultaneously. The first effect is that the uranium atom has great power. The second effect is that it is miniscule. Using these two effects a common cause is inferred that the cause of both these effects is the complex structure.

D.This is incorrect. Here a single cause is derived from an effect. Now secondary effect is inferred. The primary effect is that local bands received more funds than ever before. The cause being inferred from this effect is that the administation is more civic minded this year. There is no secondary effect being inferred in this statement

E. This is incorrect. Here you are taking a specific effect and a generalized effect and for each inferring a cause (which happens to be the same). Then you are inferring a secondary effect from this cause.
The specific effect is that water condenses when cooled and the cause inferred is that it is liquid. The second generalized effect is that all liquids condense when cooled, therefore they are liquid. Both these cause effect combinations are used to infer yet another further generalized effect (all liquids like water will condense when cooled)

Kudos [?]: 18 [1], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 13:35
A

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Prepping for a Re-take?
Affiliations: U.S. Navy
Joined: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Location: United States (MD)
Concentration: Healthcare, Finance
GMAT 1: 600 Q41 V32
GPA: 3.33
WE: Underwriter (Health Care)
Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 14:17

In order to find the answer, we need to pick the answer choice with two effects of a single cause.

For every cause, there is an effect, which can have only one characteristic(property).

Let's find the answer where an effect is inferred of a cause which has already had an effect. A) The first effect is the millions of dollars donated to the children's orphanage.
The second effect is volunteering at a cancer institute. Two different effects(donating/volunteering) to one cause(anonymous socialite).

B) Here, we are inferring two effects from the same cause, but we are not attributing a second characteristic to it due to its transitive property, the characteristic that lead to both of the effects is the same.
C) Here we are inferring that the complex structure of the atom is the cause of the immense power. The atom is the source of the power, not the cause of it. The cause is the collision of the atoms.
D) Same as above (the administration's civic-mindedness is the cause of the increased funds)
E) Cooling the liquid is the cause, condensation is the effect------WRONG=1 cause/1 effect

I hope I got it right and get picked to win, I could use a prep course. (don't post that part though please)

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 3

Retired Moderator
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 784

Kudos [?]: 479 [0], given: 33

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 19:11
wow!! \$550 for one correct is a huge money. Come and reply fast friends!!
_________________

http://drambedkarbooks.com/

Kudos [?]: 479 [0], given: 33

Intern
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 20:51

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 21:15
Explanation: The meaning of the judgment is that" The cause of this effect may not be the cause of another effect although they seems to have similar nature".
Other answers B,C,D or E all have the both effects connected closely. The cause of this effect is or is one of the cause of the other effect and we can prove their connection easily.

For answer A, there is no clue to prove that anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage also volunteers at the cancer institute.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 10

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 22:06

Explanation:
My method:
Finding the Conclusion & Evidence in the question stem & then find the same logical error in reasoning in answer choices.

Conclusion:It is not logical to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect.

Evidence: This is not correct because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some other characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Elimination:
(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.- Wrong because of usage of words 'would gues' as evidence....In Q stem we have strong wording 'must be' in evidence...so we can delete this answer choice stright away.

Remember: In parallel reasoning question we must match both the evidence and conclusion and method of argument.

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.-correct..this argument matches with the q stem in both conclusion and evidence and the reasoning. Just negate the q stem and check with this anwer choice...
Conclusion: the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power....wrong....extreme language...dosen;t match with q stem in terms of evidence and reasoning....

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.....Wrong...similar to answer choice C.....eliminate

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense....Wrong....conditional statement...logic dosen't matches with the q stem.....usage of woirds...any in conclusion

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 10

Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 89

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 14

Schools: Wharton..:)
Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 22:57
It is not logical to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect. This is not correct because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some other characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is a tough one..
i'll still give it a shot
logical error in the stem should be something like this..
X is related to y,z where y,z are unrealted
from the question prompt X= CAUSE , Y =INFERRED EFFECT,Z= OBSERVED EFFECT
here Y,Z are produced due to x, however they are different

ans choices:
a)x= y
x= donated million dollars
y= orphanage
no Z no relation therefore eliminate option A
b)x=y and y=z
therefore x=z
not the logical flaw we are looking for , in fact this is not even a flaw
eliminate b
c)
x=y,z
x= uranium
y=minuscule and not visible to the naked eye
z=highly complex structure that produces this power
there is some sort of relationship among x,y,z and y,z are different
keep the ans on hold
d)x and y relationship , z is mentioned( othr administrations) but this is bulit on a realtionship b/w x and y to produce the reasult Z
eliminate the ans
e) x works for y
therefore z ( bigger magnitude ) will also work !
not the logic we are looking for
eliminate E

therefore IMO C
_________________

" What [i] do is not beyond anybody else's competence"- warren buffett
My Gmat experience -http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-710-q-47-v-41-tips-for-non-natives-107086.html

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 14

Senior Manager
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 404

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 50

Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2010, 23:43
My answer is option E. If this is correct, please proceed below.

My approach:

First let us break down the stimulus into simpler terms so that one can easily grasp it.

Claim of the author: It is not logical to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect.

Counter claim: This is not correct because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some other characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

Given that the argument made by the author is flawed, we need to find a way to prove the author's counter claim is wrong and find out a way by which we can conclude that it is logically possible to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect.

Answer: Here the author claims that the secondary effect should also be produced because of a distinct characteristic of the cause other than the one which produced the specific effect (let us say the primary effect). However this claim is flawed since the secondary (inferred) effect could be produced because of the primary effect itself. That is the primary effect of the cause could be the cause of the secondary effect without there being another characteristic of the cause. That is the cause could still have only one primary characteristic and its influence could produce only a single effect always.

Diagrammatically represented as follows:
---------------------------------------

Cause*A --- (characteristic*A)---> Effect*A

Cause*A --- (characteristic*A)---> Effect*A (Cause*B) --- (characteristic*B) ---> Effect*B

[There is a single characteristic*A that produces only a single Effect*A but Effect*A in turn produces Effect*B with or without the same characteristic*A]

Looking at the options we need to find out a option that exhibits the similar line of resoning based on the cause and effect.

Option (A): An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.
Breaking down each sentence:
An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage.-- This is really a fact or some data which does not have a cause-effect relationship.
I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute. -- Again this is a wild extrapolation based on the philanthropic gesture made by the socialite.

*** Option eliminated because of the absence of cause-effect type of reasoning. ***

Option (B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.

Breaking down each sentence:
Radiation (Cause*A) --> Genetic variations and mutations in mother (Effect*A) (Cause*B) --> Birth Defect in child (Secondary Effect*B)

Conclusion: Radioactive material (Cause) --> birth defect (Effect)

Although the conclusion is closely related it is NOT the correct answer choice. This is a Shell answer. The radiation in the nuclear bomb is cleverly replaced with radioactive material. To consider that all radioactive material will give the same type of radiation as it is emitted from a nuke is a stretch and hence this option is ruled out.

This option is also ruled out for one more important reason. This option does not show the same flawed reasoning presented by the argument in question.

*** This is a clever opposite answer. Eliminated ***

Option (C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.

Breaking down each sentence:
Every uranium atom possesses great power. -- This statement is a fact. There is no cause-effect relationship.

It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. -- Again this statement is a fact. There is no cause-effect relationship.
It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power. -- This is a conclusion unsupported by nothing mentioned in the previous two statement.

*** There is nothing similar in this option that mimics the flawed reasoning exhibited by the question. Option Eliminated ***

Option (D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.

Breaking down each sentence:
The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. -- This is a fact statement. No cause-effect relationship.

Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones. -- Conclusion but there is nothing that represents the same line of flawed reasoning as in the question.

*** Option Eliminated. ***

Option (E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.
Breaking down each sentence:
If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. -- Cool Water (Cause) --> Condenses (Effect).

If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. -- Cool hundreds of other liquids like water (Cause) --> Condenses (Effect).

Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense. -- This is the conclusion. -- Cool any liquid like water (Cause) --> Condenses (Effect).

This conclusion is flawed in the same way as the question. This is the CORRECT answer.

Reason:

As we have seen before:

Cause*A --- (characteristic*A)---> Effect*A

Cause*A --- (characteristic*A)---> Effect*A (Cause*B) --- (characteristic*B) ---> Effect*B [There is a single characteristic*A that produces only a single Effect*A]

A single cause could lead to a new inferred effect that is a result of the primary effect. The primary effect in turn acts as a cause for the inferred (secondary or final) effect.

With this we can say that the conclusion of the option E is flawed since if any liquid like water is cooled, it might or might-not condense. Also it might condense and then the condensation could lead to something else altogether.
_________________

Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 50

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 494

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Location: Kolkata
Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 00:20

The inferred effect "this administration is more civic-minded" is produced by some other characteristic of the cause than the observed effect "received more funds from the municipality this year".The argument says the same logical error. Hence D

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 9

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 00:45
E

It is not logical to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect. This is not correct because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some other characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.

When Cause --characteristic 1 --> effect 1 is the only way to know what caused effect 1 then how can there be a characteristic 2 that can lead to effect 2.

Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.

socialite --> donate -->orphanage ---------> ~charity
|
guess
|
------------> volunteer ------> cancer inst ---------> ~charity

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.

Bomb ----> radiation --> genetic var and mutations ---> defect

therefore

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.

Uranium --> (powerful, small, invisible) --> highly complex structure

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.

Municipality ----> more funds to local bands this year ==> more civic minded

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense

cool water --> liquid ---> condense
+
cool 100's of other liquids --> like water ---> condense

==> cool any liquid like water --> condense *** why? may be some wont! Dismissing another possibility and concluding that the result will be effect-1 == condense.

_________________

Click that thing - Give kudos if u like this

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 9

Intern
Joined: 12 Oct 2010
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 03:07

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Status: it won't happen in one day but it'll happen one day
Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 03:24
my pick A

The author disagrees with the criticism of the following logic -
Y, an effect caused by X ,alone describes X hence Z cannot be deduced from X and holds that
As Z is produced by some other characteristic of X which is different from Y hence Z can be inferred
Quote:
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.- Correct….volunteer work is erroneously inferred from the monetary donation by the socialite...unrelated features used to arrive at a conclusion

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.-Incorrect….radiation causes-genetic variation &mutation causes-birth defects….follows a clear logic

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power. Incorrect- uranium atom is minuscule…has great power….hence its small but complex structure results in power….a clear logic

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.incorrect-the inference follows a related structure no radically different attribute is inferred.....

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.Incorrect-this one was tough to eliminate
this too follows a pattern where related pattern no radically different attribute is inferred.....
_________________

Life is all about ass; you're either covering it, laughing it off, kicking it, kissing it, busting it, trying to get a piece of it, or behaving like one.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Status: Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 316

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 03:44
Question stem talks about primary and secondary effects from a same cause. Only this answer choice seems to indicate two effects -> Donating and volunteering.
_________________

My gmat story
MGMAT1 - 630 Q44V32
MGMAT2 - 650 Q41V38
MGMAT3 - 680 Q44V37
GMATPrep1 - 660 Q49V31
Knewton1 - 550 Q40V27

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2010
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 04:42
* B
*Explanation - Only choice B talks about a secondary effect: Nuclear bomb radiation -> mutation in mother --> birth defect in chid. The birth defect in chilld is attributed to the genetic variation and mutation in the mother, whereas there could be other reasons for the birth defect as well.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!! [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2010, 04:55

As per the given argument,

cause A => effect X (specific and observed effect)
cause B (some other characteristics of the cause) => effect X [Argument says this is illogical]

We need to identify an argument which is parallel to the argument above i.e. the answer choice which follows same reasoning in its argument. Let's start:

(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.
[This argument doesn't seem to have cause-effect relationship. So Eliminate.]

(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
[In this argument, we have one cause (radiation from the nuclear bomb) and two effects (genetic mutation AND mutations in the mother) which is contradictory to our parent argument. So Eliminate.]

(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
[This is a simple single cause - single effect argument. So Eliminate.]

(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
[Again this is a single cause - single effect argument. So Eliminate.]

(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.
[This argument tells us that when I cool water in its liquid state, it condenses. Moreover, when I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they CONDENSE. So we see that effect is the same observed effect, for any cause. So this is my answer choice.]

Last edited by ashokkadam123 on 22 Oct 2010, 05:45, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Re: Week 1, Challenge 1 - Win a Veritas Prep Essentials Course!!   [#permalink] 22 Oct 2010, 04:55

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 56 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Wk 1, Ch 1. Veritas Prep Essentials Course Winner Announced!

Moderator: HiLine

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.