• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## 2001.6, sec II, no. 24

tagged by:

This topic has 19 member replies
Goto page
• 1,
• 2
TT Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
04 Sep 2007
Posted:
27 messages

#### 2001.6, sec II, no. 24

Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:51 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
• Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
How should I tackle these kind of questions on similar arguments? I never seem to get them right.

Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow off his car and in doing so knocked snow on the sidewalk. This same snow melted and refroze, forming ice on which the plaintiff fell, breaking her hip. We argue that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff, because malice is intention to cause harm and the defendant intentionally removed the snow from his car and put it on the sidewalk, which, unbeknownst to the defendant at the time, would subsequently cause the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer's argument?
(A) Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice's sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal.
(B) Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous. So Bruce wanted to eat poison.
(C) Cheryl denigrated the wine. Cheryl's sister had picked out the wine. So though she may not have realized it, Cheryl indirectly denigrated her sister.
(D) Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had lunch with an industrial spy.
(E) Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So Edwina sold a stolen car.

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
sochatte Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
04 Dec 2006
Posted:
47 messages
Thanked:
1 times
Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:04 pm
c may be correct.
The defendant(x) clear the snow(y)
snow(y) broke plaintiff's(z) hip.
so x caused z

Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:12 am
Nope.

sochatte Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
04 Dec 2006
Posted:
47 messages
Thanked:
1 times
Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:14 pm
is there any explanation about the correct ans?

ri2007 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
27 Aug 2007
Posted:
258 messages
Thanked:
15 times
Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:09 pm
what is the correct ans TT??

I also came to the same conclusion as sochatte.

samirpandeyit62 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
25 Mar 2007
Posted:
460 messages
Thanked:
27 times
Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:52 pm
I think that the ans is E is it correct TT?

_________________
Regards
Samir

TT Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
04 Sep 2007
Posted:
27 messages
Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:26 pm
B is the right answer. I still can't figure out why.

Nisha1218 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
01 May 2007
Posted:
91 messages
Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:33 pm
B is the answer that makes most sense

You're trying to pick the analogy that is the most representative of the stimulus. This is how I would select B as the answer:

Defendant wanted to clear the snow --> Bruce eating pie
(both are performing an action to benefit their self)

Fallen snow caused injury --> pie was poisonus
(both defendant and bruce were unaware of the consequences of their actions)

Defendant's intention to cause injury --> bruce's intention to eat poison
(logical flaws in both arguments since their initial intention was to satisfy their own need)

i hope this helped...

Nisha1218 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
01 May 2007
Posted:
91 messages
Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:34 pm
so my best advice on these questions TT is to take each sentence one at a time and compare it to the answer choices.

samirpandeyit62 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
25 Mar 2007
Posted:
460 messages
Thanked:
27 times
Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:52 pm
Now I also agree with TT, on such questions we are actually on the same boat, The point is that there are multiple reasonings possible depending upon how u interpret the data, Now I selected E coz I broke the chain of events into one more event than u did i.e 4 events

as u mentioned

Fallen snow caused injury --> pie was poisonus

The CR has line:
"This same snow melted and refroze, forming ice on which the plaintiff fell"

so my chain of events had one extra line before your line:

Fallen snow caused injury --> pie was poisonus

i.e snow changed to ice ---

ice caused the injury ----

So I was looking for one which maps the trasnformation of snow to ice & then the transformed thing causing the problem.

I found E close to it

I believe these kind of questions can be solved by mapping the actions & consequences of each event in the CR with that of the answer choices.

Nisha/ Anyone pls provide your commenst & if possible an effective starategy to solve such CR questions.

Or else TT I think we will need to rely on intution & luck to get these ones correct.

_________________
Regards
Samir

mayonnai5e Legendary Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Posted:
1018 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
86 times
Target GMAT Score:
720
Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:32 am
The question stem states the logic is flawed so the answer choice must have the same logical flaw. So you must think of this as a modified weaken question. Find the original flaw first. What is the logical flaw of the original stimulus? The lawyer misrepresents the intention of one action for the intention of another.

Original action: Moved snow.
Second action: Harmed plaintiff

The lawyer argues: "that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff"

What is malice? --> "intention to cause harm" so the lawyer argues the defendant INTENDED to harm the plaintiff.

Where was the REAL intent?
"the defendant intentionally removed the snow"

So find a statement where the intent of one action is misrepresented as the intent of the another.

(B) Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. <-- intended to eat pie
So Bruce wanted to eat poison. <-- intended to eat poison

A, C, D, and E all discuss one action and, with the additional of some qualifying information, provide extra details about that original action (e.g. had lunch with Ms. Osgood, had lunch with a spy). But the additional information does not mirror the logical flaw of the original statement. In fact, the other statements do not contain flaws. They are logically sound (e.g. I buy a car and sell it, but the car was stolen so I MUST have sold a stolen car).

Last edited by mayonnai5e on Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:00 am; edited 1 time in total

mayonnai5e Legendary Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Posted:
1018 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
86 times
Target GMAT Score:
720
Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:56 am
Also, I do not believe looking for similar chain of events nor looking for analogous situations is appropriate for this type of question. In fact, the test writers are likely to use similar chain of events and analogous situations to trap you into choosing the wrong answer. Find the flaw. Match the flaw. Find the answer.

I haven't looked at these questions much, but that's certainly how I intend on tackling them.

ri2007 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
27 Aug 2007
Posted:
258 messages
Thanked:
15 times
Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:06 am
mayonnai5e, thanks for sharing ur thinkin, it seems logical.
let see if i can apply it next time :))

samirpandeyit62 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
25 Mar 2007
Posted:
460 messages
Thanked:
27 times
Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:50 am
Many thanks mayonnai5e,
i completely agree with u, ofcourse I've analysed some of these questions myself and found that analogous chain of events involving similar actions are mostly incorrect, & its pretty logical also, otherwise there would be no reasoning left to do. I really appreciate your post, I think this strategy that you pointed out can be very effective in handling such types of questions, Incidently I find other types of CR's not that difficult to tackle, but these types are an exception. I think you have very well reproached the last line of my post, I dont have to stick with it anymore, wht abt u TT, We'll be looking up for ur help in CR's again.
Thanks

_________________
Regards
Samir

mayonnai5e Legendary Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Posted:
1018 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
86 times
Target GMAT Score:
720
Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:17 am
No problem. Glad I can help. I haven't actually seen too many of these problems yet so I'd very likely get it wrong on a CAT or run out of time and guess as a result. When I have enough time to think about it though.....

### Best Conversation Starters

1 Vincen 180 topics
2 lheiannie07 61 topics
3 Roland2rule 54 topics
4 ardz24 44 topics
5 VJesus12 14 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

155 posts
2 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

105 posts
3 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

101 posts
4 Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

82 posts
5 Matt@VeritasPrep

Veritas Prep

80 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts