Method of reasoning

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

Method of reasoning

by Dean Jones » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:27 am
Hi Frineds,

I am having difficulty with the following CR question. Please help.

Government Official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific,scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.

The flawed reasoning in the government official's argument is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

A. All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust; so if a just action causes harm to others,that action must be necessary.

B. Since there is more to good manners than simply using polite forms of address, it is not possible to say on first meeting a person whether or not that person has good manners.

C. Acrophobia, usually defined as a morbid fear of heights, can also mean a morbid fear of sharp objects.Since both fears have the same name, they undoubtedly have the same origin.

D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person.Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.

E. Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the
beholder. Thus no object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it.

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:44 am
Tough one or the one of a kind I dont practice on frequent basis

IMO E
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:41 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanabk » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:54 pm
Confused btw D and E
E

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 am
Thanked: 19 times

by krishnasty » Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:10 pm
thats a tough one...
Even i second E

Please post the OA and OE..
---------------------------------------
Appreciation in thanks please!!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

by Dean Jones » Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:03 am
OA is D

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

by Dean Jones » Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:04 am
Somebody please explain.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:40 am

by careers.asd » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:40 am
I got this correct in 1st attempt.

My reasoning was :
Original sentence says "Something is true if things are presented in a way (Ex.) But can't stand true when put otherwise (Ex.)"

'D' match this pattern.

Clearly 'E' is not any near.

In Boldface q's and Parrallel method, picking up the pattern is the proven way. Again my understanding..

Thanks

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:44 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by sandy217 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:37 am
Must be D.

D places "then" clause first followed by if clause.
That makes it difficult to spot.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:59 pm
Dean Jones wrote:Hi Frineds,

I am having difficulty with the following CR question. Please help.

Government Official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific,scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.

The flawed reasoning in the government official's argument is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

A. All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust; so if a just action causes harm to others,that action must be necessary.

B. Since there is more to good manners than simply using polite forms of address, it is not possible to say on first meeting a person whether or not that person has good manners.

C. Acrophobia, usually defined as a morbid fear of heights, can also mean a morbid fear of sharp objects.Since both fears have the same name, they undoubtedly have the same origin.

D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person.Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.

E. Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the
beholder. Thus no object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it.

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.
D
Life is a Test

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:20 pm
Toughie!! I was torn between D and E. Whats the source? I have come across very few of these kinds. Please let me know where can I get more of these..I am gonna wrestle till I feel confident on these.
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:32 am
Location: Chicago,IL
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:760

by rkanthilal » Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:11 am
Dean Jones wrote:Somebody please explain.
P1: Censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense
P2: Censorship exists if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense.
C1: Therefore, public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic activities cannot be described as censorship.

The premises of this argument provide two conditions that can be classified as censorship. The conclusion provides a scenario and claims that this scenario is not censorship because it does not match either of the two prior conditions.

This reasoning is flawed because the premises are not exclusive. In other words, the premises do not state that the two forms of censorship provided are the only forms of censorship. The premises leave open the possibility of other forms of censorship. Because of this we cannot say that the conclusion is not a form of censorship. It may be censorship in a different form than the ones stated in the premises.

To find the correct answer we need to look for an answer with the following elements:
1) Non-Exclusive Premises
2) Conclusion That Treats Premises as Exclusive
3) Flawed Reasoning

Between (D) and (E).

D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person.Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer. CORRECT.

P1: There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person.
C1: An action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.

The premise in this argument provides a form of heroic deed. According to the premise, if a person risks his or her own life to benefit another person then that person performed a heroic deed. This premise is non-exclusive. In other words, the premise does not state that this is the only way a deed can be heroic. It leaves open the possibility of other types of heroic deeds.

Notice that the conclusion does not match the premise. The conclusion is about risking the "reputation" of the doer while the premise is about risking the "life" of the doer. The conclusion is treating the premise as if it were exclusive. In other words, the conclusion is flawed because it claims that a type of deed is not heroic because it does not match the type of deed stated in the premise even though the premise leaves open the possibility that there may exist other types of heroic deeds.

This answer has the three elements of the argument we are trying to match: 1) Non-Exclusive Premises, 2) A Conclusion That Treats Premises as Exclusive, 3) Flawed Reasoning

E. Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder. Thus no object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it. INCORRECT.

P1: Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder.
P2: Not everyone will see beauty in a particular object.
C1: No object can be called beautiful.

The first premise gives an explanation of how the perception of beauty is determined. The second premise states that "not everyone will see beauty in a particular object". This premise is exclusive because it encompasses all objects. It is the same as saying that "No object will be considered beautiful by everyone". This premise does not leave open the possibility of an object that everyone sees beauty in.

This answer choice does not have the same structure as the argument we are trying to match. It gives an explanation of the perception of beauty, then it gives an exclusive premise, and ends with a flawed conclusion. We need an answer that presents non-exclusive conditions for something and a conclusion that treats the premises as exclusive.

These parallel reasoning questions are fairly difficult and time consuming. To solve parallel reasoning questions I usually start by identifying the premises and conclusion. Next, I make notes on how the premises and conclusion relate to each other. I try to identify a number of elements in the argument that I can match in the answer choices. As I said this can be fairly time consuming.

I don't remember getting any questions of this type when I took the GMAT. If I got this on the actual test, I would just try to quickly identify a few elements in the argument, match them up to an answer, and hope for the best. I suppose that if you get a parallel reasoning question on the actual test it means that you are doing very well and you can afford to possibly miss one.

If you want additional practice here is a link to another parallel reasoning question.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ugh-parallel ... 70208.html

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:55 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by XLogic » Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:21 am
rkanthilal wrote: This reasoning is flawed because the premises are not exclusive. In other words, the premises do not state that the two forms of censorship provided are the only forms of censorship. The premises leave open the possibility of other forms of censorship. Because of this we cannot say that the conclusion is not a form of censorship. It may be censorship in a different form than the ones stated in the premises.

To find the correct answer we need to look for an answer with the following elements:
1) Non-Exclusive Premises
2) Conclusion That Treats Premises as Exclusive
3) Flawed Reasoning

Between (D) and (E).

D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person.Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer. CORRECT.
Thanks for this post, it was very helpful indeed.

I see the Flaw Now...

If "Citizens not allowed communicate..", then "Censorship Exists"
If "Citizens not permitted access to communications..", then "Censorship Exists"

Both conditions above are sufficient for Censorship to exist, but they are not necessary for Censorship to exist. The conclusion is flawed because it Confuses a Sufficient condition for a Necessary condition :-)

The Argument can be abstracted as:

If X or Y, then Z
If not X and not Y, then not Z (illegal negation)

As pointed out earlier, just because X or Y guarantees Z does not mean that only X or Y guarantees Z. Hope my X's and Y's are not too distracting.

Cheers!
my post helped --> thank me!
don't thank me --> my post = what the..??