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

Redeem

software engineers

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

software engineers

by akhpad » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:19 pm
Source: Master The GMAT 2010

Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment else where. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following?

Answer choices are in image.

Image

OA: D

Please explain in detail.
Last edited by akhpad on Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:50 pm

by haveto » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:33 pm
I think A and D are good contenders but D uses strong verbiage - must vs. likely - hence, it is not a case of parallel reasoning.

IMO: A.

Whats the OA?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:52 pm
This is a parallel reasoning question. I have never seen a parallel reasoning question in any officially released GMAT materials (parallel reasoning is staple on the LSAT). So, studying this question is likely a waset of time.

Engineers aren't leaving MicroFirm. The author argues that if CompTech doesn't increase its salaries to MicroFirm level, it is likely that CompTech's engineers will leave.

But there can be reasons other than salary for why MicroFirm engineers don't leave MicroFirm. Thus, raising CompTech's engineers' salaries may not make it any more likely that engineers won't leave.

In other words, the author assumes that, besides salaries, there aren't other causes for MicroFirm's superior engineer retainment. The author assumes away any other relevant differences between the two companies.

That's what's going on in choice A.

Robert doesn't gamble and has never been penniless. But we don't know that Robert has avoided becoming penniless because he's never gambled. And this doesn't mean that if someone else doesn't gamble they too won't ever be penniless. For, there can be other relevant differences between Robert and everyone else.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:34 pm
Testluv,

I found some practice material in Master The GMAT 2010 . Is this book not advisable?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:04 pm
Well, the questions you've been posting seem to be designed fine. The issue with this one is it's just not a GMAT CR question type. So, I would stick to the ass., stn/wkn, inference, flaw, explain the paradox types of questions.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:26 pm
IMO A


D can not be OA...

B'coz arguement emphasize that IRRESPECTIVE of A (increase of salary) , B (employee leaving ) will happen

same contrast is visible in A option

BUT

D option emphasize that for B ( to be perfect) to happen, A ( diligent practice) is MANDATORY... i.e. cudn't be escaped or in other words cudn't say IRRESPECTIVE here in this context
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:30 pm
martin.jonson007 wrote:IMO A


D can not be OA...

B'coz arguement emphasize that IRRESPECTIVE of A (increase of salary) , B (employee leaving ) will happen

same contrast is visible in A option

BUT

D option emphasize that for B ( to be perfect) to happen, A ( diligent practice) is MANDATORY... i.e. cudn't be escaped or in other words cudn't say IRRESPECTIVE here in this context
Yep. I also endorsed choice A in my post above. @akhp: are you sure you have the right OA?

Anyways, this isn't a GMAT type question.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:54 pm
This is the explanation from source

Image
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:57 pm
Testluv wrote:Well, the questions you've been posting seem to be designed fine. The issue with this one is it's just not a GMAT CR question type. So, I would stick to the ass., stn/wkn, inference, flaw, explain the paradox types of questions.
AND Boldface

Thanks, I will stick with these only.
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:26 am
The OE misrepresents the premise of the stimulus. The stimulus states that "very few" engineers leave CompTech. The solution states that the "well paid" engineers "do not quit" CompTech. (That very few engineers leave CompTech does not allow us to infer that the ones leaving aren't as well paid as those who didn't leave. And for all we know all engineers at CompTech make the same money). Where the heck did "well paid" come from. And "very few" and "unlikely" don't yield conditional statements so it is very odd to say that the stimulus and choice D are parallel in flawed reasoning because mistakes in formal logic.


I had posted a big explanation for why the OE is wrong but the point is this is not a good question to study for GMAT purposes. This question (and especially the OE) looks more like a cheap knock-off of an LSAT question than it does a cheak knock-off of a GMAT question.
Last edited by Testluv on Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:54 am, edited 4 times in total.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:30 am
akhp77 wrote:
Testluv wrote:Well, the questions you've been posting seem to be designed fine. The issue with this one is it's just not a GMAT CR question type. So, I would stick to the ass., stn/wkn, inference, flaw, explain the paradox types of questions.
AND Boldface

Thanks, I will stick with these only.
AND relevant information.

Yes, indeed!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1