parallel CR

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:30 am
Thanked: 5 times

parallel CR

by blaster » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:47 am
Once people habitually engaged in conversation, now the television competes for their attention. When the television is on, communication between family members stops. Where there is no communication, family ties become frayed and eventually snap. Therefore, the only solution is to get rid of the television.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

(A) Once friendships thrived on shared leisure time. But contemporary economic pressures minimize the amount of free time people have and thus jeopardize many friendships.

(B) Once people listened to the radio while pursuing other activities. Now they passively watch television. Therefore, radio was less distracting for most people than television is.

(C) Once sports enthusiasts regularly engaged in sports, but now they watch spectator sports when they could be getting physical exercise. Without physical exercise, health deteriorates. Therefore, the only remedy is to eliminate spectator sports.

(D) Once people were willing to tailor their day to the constraints of a bus or train schedule: now they are spoiled by the private car. The only solution is for government to offer financial incentives to encourage the use of public transportation.

(E) Once people did their shopping in urban retail districts, where they combined their shopping with other errands. Now many people shop in suburban malls, where they concentrate on shopping exclusively. Therefore, shopping has become a leisure time activity.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:7 members

by Ozlemg » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:39 am
For me correct answer is C

In the question stem, it is said that :
When Tv is on, there is no conversation...
So it is assumed that when TV is off, there will be conversation...

Same reasoning happens for C. When they watch spectator sports, they do not exercise.
So it is assumed that when there is no spectator sports, there will be engagement in sports.

(C) Once sports enthusiasts regularly engaged in sports, but now they watch spectator sports when they could be getting physical exercise. Without physical exercise, health deteriorates. Therefore, the only remedy is to eliminate spectator sports.
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:11 am
Thanked: 2 times

by xxpatzz » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:30 pm
IMO:C

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:08 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Thanked: 199 times
Followed by:85 members
GMAT Score:750

by tpr-becky » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:39 pm
The correct answer is C because the stem presents a problem and then says that the only solution is the eliminate the problem. Only C does this.

Also we have a match for the first statement - people used to do one thing but now they do a new thing.

The second part - the new thing is harming people

The third part - only solution is to elminate the new thing.
Becky
Master GMAT Instructor
The Princeton Review
Irvine, CA

Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:12 pm
this kind of question is rare in OG book and on gmat. If it appear it maybe easy and not so hard as it is in LSAT. Critical Reasoning Bible have a chapter for this kin of question but I do not study this chapter for the reason I said. I also do not study bold phrase questions which is at the end of the test and not important.

Is my thinking correct?.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:30 am
Thanked: 5 times

by blaster » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:38 am
duongthang wrote:this kind of question is rare in OG book and on gmat. If it appear it maybe easy and not so hard as it is in LSAT. Critical Reasoning Bible have a chapter for this kin of question but I do not study this chapter for the reason I said. I also do not study bold phrase questions which is at the end of the test and not important.

Is my thinking correct?.
regarding Bold CR question i think you are not right. at least 1 question will be on real gmat and this kind of CR are one of the toughs.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by Prashant Ranjan » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:33 pm
It never pays to keep a very narrow focus on CR or RC questions. It would be very wrong to say that these kind of questions are atypical of GMAT since in that case, in a way (I think), we are limiting our own thinking. There is clearly no demarcation of hard questions and easy questions on GMAT since these opinions are very subjective.
This question is very typical of Pattern/ Method of reasoning questions, although I am not certain of the degree of compliance of this question. However if you approach this question, by focusing not on the content but on the structure of the reasoning, then this question is not so difficult to crack.

The argument says that
X is not happening when Y is happening.
So when X doesn't happen, then it is bound to lead to Z.

This essentially is a flawed thinking. We assume here that X doesn't happen otherwise too. And X is the only reason that leads to Z.
This pattern of reasoning is followed only in (C). In (C) the author assumes that people don't do physical exercise when they are not watching it, and lack of physical exercise is the only reason to lead to deterioration of health.

Thanks
Prashant