Critical Reasoning

Good students learn more than what their parents and teachers compel them to learn. This requires that these students derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity, and one cannot experience such pleasure unless one is capable of concentrating on a topic so intently that one loses track of one's own identity. If the statements above are true, each of the following could also be true EXCEPT:

(A) Some people who are capable of becoming so absorbed in a topic that they lose track of their own identities are nevertheless incapable of deriving pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity.
(B) Most good students do not derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity.
(C) Many people who derive pleasure simply from the satisfaction of their curiosity are not good students.
(D) Some people who are not good students derive pleasure from losing track of their own identities.
(E) Most people who are capable of becoming so absorbed in a topic that they lose track of their own identities are not good students.

Guys please post your time also..

[spoiler]The right answer is an exception from among things that "could be true". The opposite of "could be true" is something that can't be true or must be false. The second sentence tells us that being a good student requires the student to derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity. Accordingly, ALL good students derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity. So, choice B must be false and is correct.[/spoiler]

A question like this is good to study for LSAT purposes but questionable for the GMAT. The stimulus involves fairly heavy formal logic, and the question stem is phrased in a way that GMAT hasn't used since the old paper tests.

Testluv wrote:[spoiler]The right answer is an exception from among things that "could be true". The opposite of "could be true" is something that can't be true or must be false. The second sentence tells us that being a good student requires the student to derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity. Accordingly, ALL good students derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity. So, choice B must be false and is correct.[/spoiler]

A question like this is good to study for LSAT purposes but questionable for the GMAT. The stimulus involves fairly heavy formal logic, and the question stem is phrased in a way that GMAT hasn't used since the old paper tests.

Thanks for your post

I'm actually struggling with heavy formal logic questions, so can i ignore such questions and concentrate on other stuff...??? please suggest

Testluv
i arrived at B using the tree you posted few days back.

in this tree, you can infer DOWNWARDS but NOT upwards:

ALL
MOST
MANY/SOME

stimulus seems to say all good students derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity.
but option B mentions Most, so we cannot infer all from most.
is my approach correct?
Thanks.

nd ya atul for the record time was 1:45 mins,

atulmangal wrote:
I'm actually struggling with heavy formal logic questions, so can i ignore such questions and concentrate on other stuff...??? please suggest

That's right: LSAT inference questions grounded in formal logic won't be a great use of your time.

rohu27 wrote:Testluv
i arrived at B using the tree you posted few days back.

in this tree, you can infer DOWNWARDS but NOT upwards:

ALL
MOST
MANY/SOME

stimulus seems to say all good students derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity.
but option B mentions Most, so we cannot infer all from most.
is my approach correct?
Thanks.

Again, Rohu, what is the direction in which we are inferring? We are inferring FROM the passage TOWARDS the answer choices. We can't infer ALL from MOST but we can infer MOST (in the answer choice) from ALL in the passage...so this wasn't quite a legitimate reason for selecting the correct answer. (You are right in seeing that the passage suggests that ALL good students derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity. Thus, it must be false to say that most don't. That's why choice B is right).

In an earlier post, you suggested that you should always determine P-->C or C-->P. You don't need to do that. But when the question stem uses the word "supports" or "supported by", then you should do that.

Testluv wrote:

atulmangal wrote:
I'm actually struggling with heavy formal logic questions, so can i ignore such questions and concentrate on other stuff...??? please suggest

That's right: LSAT inference questions grounded in formal logic won't be a great use of your time.

@Testluv

Thanks for your suggestion, now i will invest my time in some other important topics..

atulmangal wrote:

Testluv wrote:

atulmangal wrote:
I'm actually struggling with heavy formal logic questions, so can i ignore such questions and concentrate on other stuff...??? please suggest

That's right: LSAT inference questions grounded in formal logic won't be a great use of your time.

@Testluv

Thanks for your suggestion, now i will invest my time in some other important topics..

Strengthen and weaken questions are the most common on the GMAT, so spending your time on those question types would be wise. You can still use LSAT strengthen/weaken questions if you wish as formal logic doesn't tend to show up in that question type, even on the LSAT.

One of the most common (if not the most common) argument structure in GMAT CR (especially in strengthen/weaken questions as it happens) is the causal argument. I discussed causal arguments in some detail here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/on-causal-ar ... tml#247109

@Testluv

Thanks again for your guidance and for the link..it really helped

IMO B. 1 min 27 sec