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

Redeem

tough one expl pls

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:03 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

tough one expl pls

by max37274 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:11 pm
It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above ?

a)The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.

b)The claim that any driver who is not arrested doesnot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law

c)The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it :No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant.

d)The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it :No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.

e)The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it : No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:02 pm
This is not a difficult one, if you can use mathematical approach to critical reasoning.

First lets diagramatize the stimulus [Note: Maths is amazing. you can simplify a lot of CR questions just by applying maths to them]

Stimulus- after all the crap they say in words, what they actually want to convey is this:

government does not support -> (read the arrow as implies) government does not allow creating the art.

ie. A -> B

the second sentence means: create art -> government support.

B-> A

so u see the reasoning: A -> B
B -> A [ this is a flawed reasoning. this flaw is called mistaken reversal error. we need to find yet another mistaken reversal error in the options]

this is the reasoning you need to find out in the answer choices.

a)The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.
driver not arrested -> not break the law [ A -> B]
breaks law -> driver arrested [B negation -> A negation] - there is no flaw in this option. we need a flawed reasoning as our answer. Eliminated!

b)The claim that any driver who is not arrested doesnot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law
driver not arrested -> not break the law [ A -> B]
driver arrested -> breaks the law [A negation -> B negation] - mistaken negation error. Eliminated!


c)The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it :No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant.
scientist supported by govt grant -> successful [A -> B]
scientist successful -> government grant [B -> A] - Bingo! here is the reversal flaw. My answer.

d)The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it :No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.
scientist supported by govt grant -> successful [A -> B]
scientist lacks govt support -> successful [A negation -> B] this is utter crap. i dont even have a name for the error. It is a medley pf all errors.

e)The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it : No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant.
scientist supported by govt grant -> successful [A -> B]
scientist allowed to do research -> government grant. now where does research come from? do we mean research is equivalent to successful? ask any scientist and he will tell you how not true this is [PS: my project stands testimony!!]
Anyways, without digressing, research is a new word and it cannot replace successful at all.

Hope this helps!
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:03 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by max37274 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:02 am
Thanks but the OA IS A. Can anyone confirm?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1