It is currently 22 Feb 2018, 20:42

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Yet Another Bold Face Terror

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 934
Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2008, 08:27
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Modern navigation systems, which are found in most of today’s commercial aircraft, are made with low-power circuitry, which is more susceptible to interference than the vacuum-tube circuitry found in older planes. During landing, navigation systems receive radio signals from the airport to guide the plane to the runway. Recently, one plane with low-power circuitry veered off course during landing, its dials dimming, when a passenger turned on a laptop computer. Clearly, modern aircraft navigation systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices that passengers carry on board, such as cassette players and laptop computers.
The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is a principle that the argument relies on and the second is a conclusion that can be drawn from the first.
(B) The first is a fact that argument relies on and the second is a conclusion that must be drawn from this argument.
(C) The first acknowledges a consideration that supports that main position; the second is that conclusion.
(D) The first is an evidence that supports the conclusion, the second is that conclusion.
(E) The first is a principle that is necessary for this argument, the second is a conclusion that could be drawn from this argument.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3342
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2008, 09:06
tough one between B and E..

clearly the first is either a fact or principle..

In B the language MUST be drawn is a red flag but in E..principle??

I am going with B
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1431
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2008, 09:26
I went with E...
will explain if correct.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Posts: 84
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2008, 09:35
will go with 'B'
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3342
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2008, 10:12
This is the kind of questions that I'd be confused. Could somebody explain a little bit about what the following terms mean: Argument, principle, position, consideration, and conclusion, and what are the relationships among them? I would greatly appreciated!
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 934
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2008, 10:24
I think Paul posted it somewhere in the forum.

Principle: something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact: something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence: what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

Background: Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion: Self-explanatory

Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 72
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2008, 17:45
OA???
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Posts: 31
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2008, 01:13
I'm going to swim against the current and say D.

The second part is indeed a conclusion, and the first part is a piece of evidence needed to support the conclusion.

Argument against B: "conclusion that must be drawn?" I sure hope not, because I don't agree with the conclusion personally! :)

Argument against E: To me as a scientist, a principle has a very different meaning from a fact. The stuff about the electronic equipment is a fact, not some universal truth. Abhijit's post above hints that principles have to have some "deeper truth" behind them rather that being straightforward statements of reality.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1401
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2008, 10:20
phdizzle,

D is clearly out of the way in my opinion and here is why. Because the first bold face is not an evidence even though the second bold face is the conclusion. people on plane switching on electronic devices is the evidence for the conclusion.

I say B is correct . I eliminated A because we are NOT deriving conclusion from the first bold face but from the whole argument. Keeping the fact and principle angle aside, lets explore the must and could be.

NS depend on radio signals to land the plane. Some electronic devices that were switched on during landing caused the planes to veer off their path. Now, Is it safe to assume that there was interference and hence the veer off in landing? Yes because the argument offers evidence that the dials dimmed as the laptops were powered on. So I believe this is a conclusion that "must" be drawn from the argument.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1529
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2008, 11:16
Another B.

First is not a principle. Hence, A and E are out.
First is not a consideration. Hence, C is out.
First is not a evidence. Hence, D is out.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Posts: 31
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2008, 11:21
OK, to be fair, part of the reason why I didn't like the word "must" is that (as I said) I don't agree with the conclusion and I drew on personal knowledge to refute it (admittedly a faux pas in standardized tests). If planes really were put at risk that way and the FCC really did miss such a possibility when allocating the radio spectrum, terrorists could get on board and completely undetectably switch on a bunch of electronics to potentially cause crashes. Or, less maliciously, people could just forget to turn their electronics off (I do all the time with my cell phone) and planes would still be having issues. If electronics really were a danger, we wouldn't be allowed to have them in the cabin.

Edit: I thought of a no-personal-knowledge counterargument. Here are two new conclusions that "must" be drawn from the preceding language:

"Clearly, laptop chassis are undershielded and laptop manufacturers must be forced to comply with stricter regulations to prevent aviation mishaps."

or

"Clearly, that one particular laptop was defective and its manufacturer is now subject to a lawsuit."

Also, can we generalize (as the conclusion does) that one laptop proves that all laptops and also Walkmen (completely unmentioned) are dangerous? That word "must" is still a total dealbreaker for me.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2008, 20:53
B
Re: Yet Another Bold Face Terror   [#permalink] 09 Nov 2008, 20:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Yet Another Bold Face Terror

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.