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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

1000 CR Q15

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: INDIA
Thanked: 3 times
by dextar » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:49 pm
Hi here in this question y option A is wrong?

Alba: I don’t intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election. She is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.
Tam: But Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate.
Alba: If Senator Frank sponsored it, it can’t be a very strong anticrime law.
Which of the following identifies the most serious logical flaw in Alba’s reasoning?
(A) The facts she presents do not support her conclusion that Senator Frank is soft on crime.
(B) She assumes without proof that crime is the most important issue in the upcoming election.
(C) She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.
(D) She attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds rather than on he merit as a political leader.
(E) In deciding not to vote for Senator Frank, she fails to consider issues other than crime.
Last edited by dextar on Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 amFollowed by: 5 members
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times

by camitava » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:59 pm
dextar,
I will go for A. Becasue,
B - is saying something that is out of the discussion.
C - Alba has not put any conflicting evidence.
D - The issue mentioned by Alba is not having anything pointing to senetor's personal ground.
E - The discussion is all about the crime and it can be a case that a person can reject a person to vote for only one ground.

Got me, dextar? Am I correct? What's the OA?
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: INDIA
Thanked: 3 times

by dextar » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:09 pm
Hi that's what bamboozling me. Even I chose A

But the OA given is C

I can't figure out y? That is why I posted this question.
This is 1000 Cr Test A Q15
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:57 am
Location: mumbai, India
Thanked: 5 times

by ikant » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:18 pm
The answer is C. This is infact a classical logical fallacy called Circular Reasonig.

In this case the conclusion is used to prove the premise which in turn justifies the conclusion.

eg; Good students prefer Harvard as it is a great institute. Harvard is a great institute because good students study there.

I hope this allows you to see Alba's reasoning in the same light.
"To do is to be"
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 amFollowed by: 5 members
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times

by camitava » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:49 pm
ikant, thanks a lot 4 ur input! But can u pls elaborate a little? Though u have provided the way to solve the problem, I am not bein able to get the answer to chose! Are you just picking up C as it is mentioning that She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence. - indicated by bold-lettered words?
ikant, little more explanation, I think, can help me to select the correct answer!
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: INDIA
Thanked: 3 times

by dextar » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:49 pm
ikant wrote:The answer is C. This is infact a classical logical fallacy called Circular Reasonig.

In this case the conclusion is used to prove the premise which in turn justifies the conclusion.

eg; Good students prefer Harvard as it is a great institute. Harvard is a great institute because good students study there.

I hope this allows you to see Alba's reasoning in the same light.
Hi
Would you pls explain me the above posted question using your method.
I still can't figure out y option C is right. There is no conflicting evidence mentioned in the statement. There is only one evidence that Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate. So how can C be the answer.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:57 am
Location: mumbai, India
Thanked: 5 times

by ikant » Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:02 pm
Ok.. let me take this in detail.

Each arguement has a premise and a conclusion.

Albs's premise is that Senator Frank is a weak supporter of anticrime law.

Now the conflicting evidence comes from Tam who states that Senator Frank sponsored a latest anti crime law.

Now see what happens.
To negate this conclusion Alba saya that
Law is weak Because Senator Frank passed it.

Alba has no reason or evidence to judge the law being weak except that it was passed by Frank. Why because Frank is a weak senator. And since he passe a weak law he does not support the anti crime movement.

Do u see the circle being formed now?
"To do is to be"
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 amFollowed by: 5 members
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times

by camitava » Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:12 pm
Hey ikant! Got it man, now! Really appreciable. Learnt a new approach ... :-)
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Tue May 10, 2016 11:29 pm
answer is clearly C here
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1