When people experience throbbing in their teeth or gums, they have ser

Question

When people experience throbbing in their teeth or gums, they have serious dental problems, and if a dental problem is serious, it will be a problem either of tooth decay or of gum disease. Therefore, since throbbing in the teeth or gums is a sign of serious dental problems, and neither Sabina’s teeth nor her gums are throbbing, Sabina can be suffering from neither tooth decay nor gum disease.

Which one of the following contains an error of reasoning most similar to that made in the argument above?

(A) People who drink a lot of coffee are said to have jittery nerves. Therefore, medical students who drink a lot of coffee should not become neonatologists or surgeons since neither neonatology nor surgery should be practiced by people with jittery nerves.

(B) A legally practicing psychiatrist must have both a medical degree and psychiatric training. Thus, since Emmett has not undergone psychiatric training, if he is practicing as a psychiatrist, he is not doing so legally.

(C) Someone with severe nasal congestion has a sinus infection or else is suffering from an allergy. Therefore, if Barton does not have a sinus infection, Barton probably does not have severe nasal congestion.

(D) If a person is interested in either physics or chemistry, then that person would be wise to consider a career in medicine. Yolanda, however, is interested in neither physics nor chemistry, so it would not be wise for her to consider a career in medicine.

(E) Someone who is neither an ophthalmologist nor an optometrist lacks specialized training for diagnosing defects of the eye. Therefore, Kim must have been trained in ophthalmology or optometry, given that she accurately diagnosed John’s eye defect.

globaldesi · Answer

C makes most sense 
since in the given statement 
writer assumes that throbbing in their teeth or gums are the only reasons for tooth decay or of gum disease. Similarly in C someone who has allergic can have only because of sinus or allergy . IF he doesn't have sinus he can't have nasal congestion

bidskamikaze · Answer

When people experience throbbing in their teeth or gums, they have serious dental problems, and if a dental problem is serious, it will be a problem either of tooth decay or of gum disease.   Therefore, since throbbing in the teeth or gums is a sign of serious dental problems, and neither Sabina’s teeth nor her gums are throbbing, Sabina can be suffering from neither tooth decay nor gum disease .

Which one of the following contains an error of reasoning most similar to that made in the argument above?

The portion of argument in  GREEN is: If A is true, B is true; and if B is true, A is true.
The portion in  BLUE  is the conclusion, and goes like this:
 Since A = B ; and S (NOT)= A
Therefore S (NOT)= B

Looking at the options, Only Choice C and D look close. Eliminate A, B, and E.

(C) Someone with severe nasal congestion has a sinus infection or else is suffering from an allergy. Therefore, if Barton does not have a sinus infection, Barton probably does not have severe nasal congestion.
- Choice C goes like this: If A is true then X or Y are true. Since B is NOT = X, B is NOT = Y.
There is a flaw in this argument, and it doesn't match the argument in question stem.  INCORRECT .

(D) If a person is interested in either physics or chemistry, then that person would be wise to consider a career in medicine. Yolanda, however, is interested in neither physics nor chemistry, so it would not be wise for her to consider a career in medicine.
- This choice says: If A or B is true, then C is true. Therefore, if Y NOT= A or B, Then Y NOT= C
This is closer to the argument in question. D is the correct answer

Answer D.

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   GMATNinja  Would you like to explain this question ?

Dooperman · Answer

Clearly C vs D.

C has the word probably. Which leaves room for the opposite case. Hence D.

Ghoskrp3 · Answer

Follow these equations to understand the reasoning of each statement better in deducing the main argument and all the option statements that follow:

Abbreviations and Word meanings   
   Deduced Equation(s)   
   What was Inferred   
   Remarks   
 
  TTG = Throbbing in Teeth or Gums
SDP = Severe Dental Problems
TD/GD = Tooth Decay / Gum Disease

TTG -> SDP = means throbbing in teeth or gums means serious dental problems
SDP -> TD/GD = Serious Dental Problem will lead to either of tooth decay or gum disease

Sabrina = TTG' (means, Sabina’s neither teeth and nor her gums are throbbing) 
 TTG -> SDP
SDP -> TD/GD

Hence,
TTG -> SDP -> TD/GD

Sabrina = TTG'

Sabrina / TTG' -> TD'/GD'  
  The exact flaw in the statement was TTG' -> TD'/GD'

(Since we can never say with certainty that "Throbbing in Teeth or Gums" is the only cause of " Tooth Decay / Gum Disease", hence TTG' -> TD'/GD' is incorrect to conclude)

So, let's see which all option statements use the same false logic  
 
   Option A) 
C = People who drink Coffee / Surgeons drinking Coffee
JN = Jittery Nerves
N/S = Neonatologists / Surgeons  
 C -> JN  
 Students = C
 Students / C -> N'/S'

because, N/S -> JN' 
  Indirect Correlation with the not sentence and also,  we want a flawed equation of   2 not sentences , which can't be proved and here we have only one not sentence  
 
   Option B) 
LPP =  legally practicing psychiatrist  
MD =  medical degree  
  PT = psychiatric training   
 MD + PT -> LPP 
  Emmett  = PT'  (50/50)

then  Emmett /  PT' -> LPP' 
  Exactly the equation we want, but says, "if he is practicing as a psychiatrist", lacks clarity on Emmett, unlike we were certain on Sabrina in the main argument  
 
   Option C)
 SNG =  severe nasal congestion
SI/A = sinus infection or allergy  
 SNG -> SI/A 
  Barton = SI'

then SI' -> SNG'  (50/50)  
  Says Barton probably does not have severe nasal congestion, again just a 50/50 certainty in inferencing  
 
   Option D)
 IP/IC =  interested in either physics or chemistry  
CM =  career in medicine  
 IP/IC -> CM 
  Yolanda = IP'/IC'

then,  Yolanda / IP'/IC' -> CM'  
  Clean statement, similar flawed equation as the given argument with no if's and but's  
 
   Option E) 
OP'/OPT' = neither an  ophthalmologist nor an optometrist
ED' = lacks training to diagnose eye defects  
 OP'/OPT' -> ED' 
 Kim = OP/OPT

Kim/OP/OPT -> ED 
  It is the correct equation format, but lacks the asserted and inferred equation structure, the structure starts positive and then infers negative from a negative, here it rather starts with a negative relationship and then tries to infer a positive from another positive.

Hence, D

When people experience throbbing in their teeth or gums, they have ser

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

Abbreviations and Word meanings	Deduced Equation(s)	What was Inferred	Remarks
TTG = Throbbing in Teeth or Gums SDP = Severe Dental Problems TD/GD = Tooth Decay / Gum Disease TTG -> SDP = means throbbing in teeth or gums means serious dental problems SDP -> TD/GD = Serious Dental Problem will lead to either of tooth decay or gum disease Sabrina = TTG' (means, Sabina’s neither teeth and nor her gums are throbbing)	TTG -> SDP SDP -> TD/GD Hence, TTG -> SDP -> TD/GD	Sabrina = TTG' Sabrina / TTG' -> TD'/GD'	The exact flaw in the statement was TTG' -> TD'/GD' (Since we can never say with certainty that "Throbbing in Teeth or Gums" is the only cause of " Tooth Decay / Gum Disease", hence TTG' -> TD'/GD' is incorrect to conclude) So, let's see which all option statements use the same false logic
Option A) C = People who drink Coffee / Surgeons drinking Coffee JN = Jittery Nerves N/S = Neonatologists / Surgeons	C -> JN	Students = C Students / C -> N'/S' because, N/S -> JN'	Indirect Correlation with the not sentence and also, we want a flawed equation of 2 not sentences, which can't be proved and here we have only one not sentence
Option B) LPP = legally practicing psychiatrist MD = medical degree PT = psychiatric training	MD + PT -> LPP	Emmett = PT' (50/50) then Emmett / PT' -> LPP'	Exactly the equation we want, but says, "if he is practicing as a psychiatrist", lacks clarity on Emmett, unlike we were certain on Sabrina in the main argument
Option C) SNG = severe nasal congestion SI/A = sinus infection or allergy	SNG -> SI/A	Barton = SI' then SI' -> SNG' (50/50)	Says Barton probably does not have severe nasal congestion, again just a 50/50 certainty in inferencing
Option D) IP/IC = interested in either physics or chemistry CM = career in medicine	IP/IC -> CM	Yolanda = IP'/IC' then, Yolanda / IP'/IC' -> CM'	Clean statement, similar flawed equation as the given argument with no if's and but's
Option E) OP'/OPT' = neither an ophthalmologist nor an optometrist ED' = lacks training to diagnose eye defects	OP'/OPT' -> ED'	Kim = OP/OPT Kim/OP/OPT -> ED	It is the correct equation format, but lacks the asserted and inferred equation structure, the structure starts positive and then infers negative from a negative, here it rather starts with a negative relationship and then tries to infer a positive from another positive.

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

When people experience throbbing in their teeth or gums, they have ser

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