CR- Question-Very confusing

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 231
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

CR- Question-Very confusing

by khurram » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:52 pm
Many plant varieties used in industrially developed nations to improve cultivated crops come from lessdeveloped nations. No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity." Such reasoning is, however,
flawed. After all, no one suggests that coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment.

Which of the following best describes an aspect of the method used by the author in the argument above?





A The author proceeds from a number of specific observations to a tentative generalization.
B The author applies to the case under discussion facts about phenomena assumed to be similar in some relevant respect.
C A position is strengthened by showing that the opposite of that position would have logically absurd consequences.
D A line of reasoning is called into question on the grounds that it confuses cause and effect in a causal relation.
E An argument is analyzed by separating statements of fact from individual value judgments.

Ans is B

I am very confused.

Thanks
khurram

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:613 members
GMAT Score:800

Re: CR- Question-Very confusing

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:34 pm
khurram wrote:Many plant varieties used in industrially developed nations to improve cultivated crops come from lessdeveloped nations. No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity." Such reasoning is, however,
flawed. After all, no one suggests that coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment.

Which of the following best describes an aspect of the method used by the author in the argument above?
This is a very rare question type (a lot more common the LSAT, actually) sometimes called "method of argument". We're asked to describe HOW the author argues her point.

Most of the time we can predict the answer to this kind of question. In this case, the author introduces a new example (coal, oil, ores) to try to prove her point. We generally call this technique "arguing by analogy". Our prediction is "using an unrelated example that the author thinks is similar to the scenario in question" (which is a long-winded way of saying "analogy").

Let's look at the choices:
A The author proceeds from a number of specific observations to a tentative generalization.
B The author applies to the case under discussion facts about phenomena assumed to be similar in some relevant respect.
C A position is strengthened by showing that the opposite of that position would have logically absurd consequences.
D A line of reasoning is called into question on the grounds that it confuses cause and effect in a causal relation.
E An argument is analyzed by separating statements of fact from individual value judgments.
The only answer in the ballpark is (b) and the tip off is "applies to the case facts about phenomena assumed to be similar" which is just a fancier way of phrasing our prediction. When we predict, we always want to keep our prediction simple and general, because it's much easier to go from a general prediction to a complicated worded answer than vice-versa.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 231
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by khurram » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:50 am
Thanks very much.

Khurram

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 195
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Thanked: 10 times

Re: CR- Question-Very confusing

by sankruth » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:59 am
Stuart Kovinsky wrote: Most of the time we can predict the answer to this kind of question. In this case, the author introduces a new example (coal, oil, ores) to try to prove her point. We generally call this technique "arguing by analogy". Our prediction is "using an unrelated example that the author thinks is similar to the scenario in question" (which is a long-winded way of saying "analogy").
Stuart,
Is was wondering if there is a list of common argument patterns that GMAC uses for such questions. For example, this question used an analogy to argue, likewise are there other patterns that one can identify and therefore predict the answer based on the argument pattern.

Thanks,
Ramesh

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 231
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by khurram » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:21 am
That would really help.

Otherwise, being a non native speaker, not used to this type, I am like what did I just read here.

I guess one way would be to do X and Y simplification.

Khurram

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: 07 Apr 2014

by peter.p.81 » Tue May 10, 2016 11:46 pm
The official answer is B. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain