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

Redeem

LSAT CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times

LSAT CR

by punitkaur » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:47 pm
Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit
management, several computer experts
maintained that the most significant threat faced
by large institutions such as universities and
hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential
data. In light of this testimony, we should make
the protection of our clients' confidentiality our
highest priority.
The hospital executive's argument is most vulnerable to
which one of the following objections?
(A) The argument confuses the causes of a problem
with the appropriate solutions to that problem.
(B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts
whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently
broad to support their general claim.
(C) The argument assumes that a correlation
between two phenomena is evidence that one is
the cause of the other.
(D) The argument draws a general conclusion about
a group based on data about an
unrepresentative sample of that group.
(E) The argument infers that a property belonging to
large institutions belongs to all institutions.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

by 2010gmat » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:09 pm
IMO D...hospital executive's view is based upon un-representive data sample and he is applying the finding to a speicla group {his own hospital..}
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 » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:58 pm
Actually, the OA should be choice B here.

Is computer experts' expertise broad enough to decide what institutions' highest priority should be?

No, computer experts, for example, will not be versed in, say, business strategy, law, etc. It could be that a threat having to do with one of these other aspects constitutes an even greater threat than unauthorized access to confidential data.

The author's conclusion is a recommendation about what institutions' highest priority should be. Choice D is wrong because the author isn't even drawing a conclusion about a group.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times

by punitkaur » Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:18 am
Hi Testluv,

the OA is B. I too had picked D. So by saying that the conclusion is not about a group, does it mean that a hospital cannot count as a group? Its a single identity...?

Also you said that the computer expert's expertise is not broad enough to decide what the institution's highest priority should be. But the argument does not indicate that the expert is drawing that conclusion. It is the author who is drawing the conclusion, and the way he is doing it is flawed. so how can we blame the computer expert's lack of expertise for it.

I may be sounding silly here :P. However, please explain.
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 » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:22 pm
punitkaur wrote:Hi Testluv,

the OA is B. I too had picked D. So by saying that the conclusion is not about a group, does it mean that a hospital cannot count as a group? Its a single identity...?

Also you said that the computer expert's expertise is not broad enough to decide what the institution's highest priority should be. But the argument does not indicate that the expert is drawing that conclusion. It is the author who is drawing the conclusion, and the way he is doing it is flawed. so how can we blame the computer expert's lack of expertise for it.

I may be sounding silly here :P. However, please explain.
Choice D states: The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group.

But the author isn't even drawing a conclusion about a group. His conclusion is a recommendation about what institutions should set as the highest priority. Is this a conclusion about a group? No, it is not; instead, it is a recommendation about what institutions should set as the highest priority! Because he does not even draw a conclusion about a group, choice D is wrong from the get-go.

You are right in that the experts are not drawing a conclusion--the author is. But what is the author using to draw that conclusion?...
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:59 am
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by nileshdalvi » Fri May 21, 2010 8:05 pm
Hi Testluv,

I am still not convinced with the explanation. The argument says that in the conference, computer experts had maintained their view that the most significant threat is unauthorized access to confidential data. And then the executive of the hospital had made a statement that protection of client data is of highest priority. How is that this statement of the executive vulnerable to objection that experts did not have the desired expertise. Those experts only mentioned that the most significant threat is unauthorized access and whether it was of highest priority was decided upon by the Executive. Is it that just because they claim that unauthorized access is "most significant" threat makes a point that they are not expert in business matters?

Somehow I am confused with this. It would be good, Testluv, if you could elaborate more on that explanation.
Thanks.
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 » Fri May 21, 2010 9:36 pm
Is it that just because they claim that unauthorized access is "most significant" threat makes a point that they are not expert in business matters?
Basically, yes.

Computer experts are making a claim that confidentiality is the greatest concern. That doesn't mean they are right. Other experts may claim otherwise. Computer experts are just one group. They may not be sufficiently qualified to consider and evaluate threats from areas not having to do with computers. And threats from non-computer areas may well be more, well, threatening.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1