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

Redeem

Siegfried's logic

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: NYC
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:720

Siegfried's logic

by n_niaz » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:23 pm
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
a) It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
b) It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
c) It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
d) It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
e) It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by ssmiles08 » Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:29 pm
its b/w C and D

I would pick C...
You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:20 pm
Between B and E

I would go for E
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:12 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by shilpi84 » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:53 pm
IMO:C
What is the OA?
Top
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:42 pm
Location: Paris, France
Thanked: 71 times
Followed by:17 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmat740 » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:26 pm
IMO-E
a) It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority. out of scope
b) It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove. this is not a circular reasoning case
c) It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.it does offers an example, but certainly that is not the reason for its flaw.
d) It is based on an unproven speculation about future events. out of scope
e) It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.correct.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:49 pm
It is between B and E. unable to understand the meaning of E
"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:02 pm
theres a change of scope in Sigfried's argument from Brunhildas argument

Brunhilda: our generation cannot confidently hope for a better std of living (compared to the parents) in the future

Sigfried: counters Brunhilda by saying he already has a better std of living in the present. he doesnt even consider the future as Brunhildas argument does.
one can have a better std of living than his parents had in the present and still may not be able to confidently hope for a better living in the future.
=> Brunhildas argument may still hold=> Brunhildas conclusion not inconsistent with Sigfried's example.

C seems best
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:12 am
Thanked: 8 times

by cata1yst » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:09 am
scoobydooby wrote:theres a change of scope in Sigfried's argument from Brunhildas argument

Brunhilda: our generation cannot confidently hope for a better std of living (compared to the parents) in the future

Sigfried: counters Brunhilda by saying he already has a better std of living in the present. he doesnt even consider the future as Brunhildas argument does.
one can have a better std of living than his parents had in the present and still may not be able to confidently hope for a better living in the future.
=> Brunhildas argument may still hold=> Brunhildas conclusion not inconsistent with Sigfried's example.

C seems best

Agree.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: NYC
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:720

by n_niaz » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:57 am
will tell when somebody gets the right answer :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: Sao Paulo-Brazil
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:660

by shibal » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:12 am
IMO B
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:23 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by suo1987 » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:19 am
IMO E
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:12 am
Thanked: 8 times

by cata1yst » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:32 am
n_niaz wrote:will tell when somebody gets the right answer :)
I guess it is D. then since no one has taken that yet. Haha.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: NYC
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:720

by n_niaz » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:01 am
there's another one nobody has taken as yet.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by ssmiles08 » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:09 am
lol what A???

which makes NO sense to me btw lol
You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by ogbeni » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:39 am
It has got to be E because Siegfried uses evidence of a correlation ("My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was") to argue the existence of a causal relationship ("and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents").

The causal relationship is established when Siegried says "That's simply untrue". [Well why is Brunhilda's statement untrue?]***[BECAUSE]*** "My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was [ CORRELATION], "and my own standard ofliving is already higher than that of my parents [CORRELATION]"
Top
Post new topic Post Reply