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

Redeem

Source GMAC paper test

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:28 am
Followed by:1 members

Source GMAC paper test

by jsasipriya » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:14 pm
People who live unusually long tend to have been lean young adults who went on to gain approximately one pound every year, so lean young adults can improve their chances of living a long life by gaining about a pound every year.
A flaw in the argument above is that it
(A) gives reasons for the truth of its conclusion that presuppose the truth of that conclusion
(B) proceeds as though a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result must always be present for that result to be achieved
(C) assumes without proof that two phenomena that occur together share an underlying cause
(D) concludes that one phenomenon is the cause of another when at most what has been established is an association between them
(E) fails to recognize that a tendency widely shared by a subgroup within a given population will not necessarily be widely shared by that population as a whole

OA D
Why is B incorrect?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
Thanked: 378 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:760

by Geva@EconomistGMAT » Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:29 am
The problem with B lies in the phrasing "a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result". The condition B refers to is "gaining one pound every year", but that condition is nor enough to guarantee long life - the argument does not even prove that there's a link between the two phenomenons.
Geva
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT
1-888-780-GMAT
https://www.mastergmat.com
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
Thanked: 118 times
Followed by:33 members
GMAT Score:710

by bblast » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:40 pm
Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:The problem with B lies in the phrasing "a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result". The condition B refers to is "gaining one pound every year", but that condition is nor enough to guarantee long life - the argument does not even prove that there's a link between the two phenomenons.
Y not E ? :?:
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
Thanked: 378 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:760

by Geva@EconomistGMAT » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:51 pm
bblast wrote:
Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:The problem with B lies in the phrasing "a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result". The condition B refers to is "gaining one pound every year", but that condition is nor enough to guarantee long life - the argument does not even prove that there's a link between the two phenomenons.
Y not E ? :?:
I guess I'll answer with a question: if you choose E, who is the subgroup, and who is the population as a whole the argument claims the tendency will not work for?
Geva
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT
1-888-780-GMAT
https://www.mastergmat.com
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
Thanked: 118 times
Followed by:33 members
GMAT Score:710

by bblast » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:00 am
Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:
bblast wrote:
Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:The problem with B lies in the phrasing "a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result". The condition B refers to is "gaining one pound every year", but that condition is nor enough to guarantee long life - the argument does not even prove that there's a link between the two phenomenons.
Y not E ? :?:
I guess I'll answer with a question: if you choose E, who is the subgroup, and who is the population as a whole the argument claims the tendency will not work for?
I assumed the subgroup as "People who live unusually long tend"
and population (total MINUS subgroup).

I have seen similar questions in the past with the answer I chose, please correct me as to where I am going wrong ?
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
Thanked: 378 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:760

by Geva@EconomistGMAT » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:23 am
bblast wrote:
Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:
bblast wrote:
Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:The problem with B lies in the phrasing "a condition that by itself is enough to guarantee a certain result". The condition B refers to is "gaining one pound every year", but that condition is nor enough to guarantee long life - the argument does not even prove that there's a link between the two phenomenons.
Y not E ? :?:
I guess I'll answer with a question: if you choose E, who is the subgroup, and who is the population as a whole the argument claims the tendency will not work for?
I assumed the subgroup as "People who live unusually long tend"
and population (total MINUS subgroup).

I can sort of see how you can "bully" the argument to fit E as well (if you assume that the subgroup is "those people who were lean and lived long", and the entire population is "lean people", then the argument does assume that what worked for this lean person will work for others, but does not establish that assumption), but D is simply a stronger answer choice. It comes down to how you define the flaw. Think about what the argument is saying: in order to live longer, I need to gain weight. That's just stupid - obesity will shorten your life, not prolong it. So why is the argument saying that it works for these people? perhaps the argument reads the right data, but reaches the wrong conclusion: these people were lean when they were little, and grew fatter as they grew older, but the two facts are not linked in any way - there must be some other reason why these lean people lived longer, and the fact that they also grew fatter coexists, but is not the cause.

If you have that definition of what's wrong with the argument before you rush to the answer choices, then you will not be swayed with traps such as E. E is indeed a flaw committed by the argument, but it's not THE flaw: if you say that the only problem with the argument is that it ignores the fact that what worked for this group of lean people will not necessarily work for all lean people, you are effectively buying into the argument's basic premise that gaining weight works as a life prolonging method in the first place.
Geva
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT
1-888-780-GMAT
https://www.mastergmat.com
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:50 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members

by Ravish » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:08 pm
jsasipriya wrote:
Why is B incorrect?
I held on to B but upon reading D i immediately eliminated B after skimming through the argument again. Here is why:

In B , the choice states that 'the argument proceeds by assuming a condition, by itself, is enough to GUARANTEE a certain result.

However , look at what the argument states

' lean young adults CAN IMPROVE their chances of living a long life by gaining about a pound every year'

The words can improve are in no way synonymous with guarantee. Guarantee means that gaining a pound a year 100% leads to a longer life whereas can improve chances of living implies that 'there is no guarantee that you will live longer, it will definitely increase your chances at a longer life'.

Let me use two examples to break down the difference:

1) Federer, use this tennis racket and I GUARANTEE you will beat Nadal at a grand slam

2) Federer, use this racket and you have a better chance of beating Nadal at a grand slam


In contrast, let me break down D - i have included in brackets excerpts from the argument that are in sync with the words in D

Concludes that one phenomena (gaining a pound a year)
is the cause of another ( increased chance at a longer life)
when at most what has been established is an association between them ( no proof has been provided in the argument as to why gaining a pound increases chances at a longer life, just that people who live longer tended to have gained a pound a day).

It would be the same as saying:

A study of people who earn the highest salaries showed that the high earners drank alcohol. Hence to improve your chances at a salary increase , start drinking .

Your first question to that argument would be - How does drinking lead to a salary increase? Same question can be asked for the above argument - How does a gain of a pound improve chances at a longer life?

Hence D.

Not encouraging drinking but that alcohol example was actually the result of a real study
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1