BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR - Kaplan

Expert replies
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by gsinghal » Tue May 11, 2010 7:32 am
clearly D. Look at the bold part : wheat crop probably fell prey to ergot fungus. It might be possible that the crop might get prey to fungus or might not.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Wed May 26, 2010 8:51 am
akhp77 wrote:Problem is in Image


Image

OA: D


Please explain
yes its D. it took me minutes to answer this question. it seems that akp77 like doing touch CR in kaplan book. i am so scared of doing those questions in kaplan because they ask us to pay attention word to word
Join the discussion

by akhpad » Wed May 26, 2010 10:53 pm
But what leads to option D. I have not seen proper explanation from both of you. I reveal OA in beginning because I need explanation.

I believe that
probable occurrence = unusual rain fall and wheat crops are eaten by fungus.
Actual occurrence = wiping out population by murderer and self destruction

I am not sure.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Wed May 26, 2010 11:04 pm
akhp77 wrote:But what leads to option D. I have not seen proper explanation from both of you. I reveal OA in beginning because I need explanation.

I believe that
probable occurrence = unusual rain fall and wheat crops are eaten by fungus.
Actual occurrence = wiping out population by murderer and self destruction

I am not sure.
oh i thought gsinghal explaination was so clearly?
the problem is about the key " probably"
it says that MAYBE/PROBABLY the crop which fell prey to fungus cause dangerous psycho... ( kill people and themself) after people ate that crop.
probably/maybe is something which could happen and which couldnt. there is no sure for what the author in the argument convinced
Join the discussion

by kevincanspain » Wed May 26, 2010 11:38 pm
akhp77 wrote:Problem is in Image


Image

OA: D


Please explain
All we are offered in terms of evidence is that a wave of violence coincided with weather conditions that probably fostered the growth of a fungus that can lead to a disease that causes people to experience hallucinations and other psychological problems. Thus the hypothesis is plausible but by no means should be regarded as conclusively supported, as we do not know for a fact that the fungus actually appeared.

You probably know by now not to confuse 'correlation' with 'causation', The evidence provided doesn't even qualify as a 'correlation': I would call it a likely correlation, and its status should make you even more skeptical that you are when you are offered a causation argument that includes a factual correlation.
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Join the discussion

by akhpad » Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:37 am
I am still unable to select OA.

Actually, I am confused with the terms probable and actual occurrence.
Join the discussion

by Testluv » Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:02 am
@kevin: awesome explanation!
___________

@akhp77: in short, (the growth of a fungus leading to) ergotism PROBABLY occured. The major flaw in the author's reasoning is that he assumes it ACTUALLY occured.

You say you are unable to select OA, but please tell us: what choice are you selecting over the OA? Perhaps, then, we can give you a better explanation.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Join the discussion

by tpr-becky » Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:37 am
This is a Very tough question, and not the best as far as I am concerned. But If something probably fell prey and that CAN cause a disease you cannot say that it was the cause, although it may well be - you can't draw an absolute fact from a probable event and that is what they are doing here.
Becky
Master GMAT Instructor
The Princeton Review
Irvine, CA
Join the discussion

by ansumania » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:20 pm
kevincanspain wrote:
akhp77 wrote:Problem is in Image


Image

OA: D


Please explain

All we are offered in terms of evidence is that a wave of violence coincided with weather conditions that probably fostered the growth of a fungus that can lead to a disease that causes people to experience hallucinations and other psychological problems. Thus the hypothesis is plausible but by no means should be regarded as conclusively supported, as we do not know for a fact that the fungus actually appeared.

You probably know by now not to confuse 'correlation' with 'causation', The evidence provided doesn't even qualify as a 'correlation': I would call it a likely correlation,
and its status should make you even more skeptical that you are when you are offered a causation argument that includes a factual correlation.
Kevin, will you pl. explain what exactly do you mean in the quoted portion? I understood most part of your explanation but not this......
Join the discussion

by akhpad » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:28 am
Thanks to all.

Finally, I understood it.
Join the discussion