Many people change their wills on their own every few years, in response to significant changes in their personal or financial circumstances. This practice can create a problem foe the executor when these people are careless and do not date their wills: the executor will then often know neither which one of several undated wills is the most recent, nor whether the will drawn up last has ever been found. Therefore, people should not only date their wills but also state in any new will which will it supersedes, for then there would not be a problem to begin with.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) treats a partial solution to the stated problem as though it were a complete solution.
(B) Fails to distinguish between prevention of a problem and successful containment of the adverse effects that the problem might cause.
(C) Proposes a solution to the stated problem that does not actually solve the problem but merely makes someone else responsible for solving the problem.
(D) Claims that a certain action would be a change for the better without explicitly considering what negative consequences the action might have.
(E) Proposes that a certain action be based on information that would be unavailable at the time proposed for that action.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Many people change their wills on their own every few years
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Option A - INCORRECT.
This option is not adequately a flawed one, because dating your will is actually the right thing to do when changes are made.
Option B - INCORRECT.
This reasoning is not flawed because the argument has stated how to prevent and how to successfully contain adverse effects that the problem might cause. I.e. the importance of dating.
Option C - CORRECT.
This statement is flawed because the reasoning in the argument accepted that dating of will by the owner is important and also accepted that it is not actually the solution for misappropriation of will. Stating which of the will to supersede all other tampered will is also important not to create confusion among the inheritants and the lawyer after the dismissal of the owner.
Option D - INCORRECT.
This option is flawed because the consequences of not dating your will has been stated in the argument.
Option E - INCORRECT.
The argument proposal is for the proper dating to be done each time there is a change in the will, meanwhile dating is always available.
This option is not adequately a flawed one, because dating your will is actually the right thing to do when changes are made.
Option B - INCORRECT.
This reasoning is not flawed because the argument has stated how to prevent and how to successfully contain adverse effects that the problem might cause. I.e. the importance of dating.
Option C - CORRECT.
This statement is flawed because the reasoning in the argument accepted that dating of will by the owner is important and also accepted that it is not actually the solution for misappropriation of will. Stating which of the will to supersede all other tampered will is also important not to create confusion among the inheritants and the lawyer after the dismissal of the owner.
Option D - INCORRECT.
This option is flawed because the consequences of not dating your will has been stated in the argument.
Option E - INCORRECT.
The argument proposal is for the proper dating to be done each time there is a change in the will, meanwhile dating is always available.
