This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: 02 May 2009
Thanked: 17 times

Patrick

by madhur_ahuja » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:11 pm
Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. But no expert is certain of being able to solve someone else’s problem. Patrick wants to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

Which one of the following conclusions can be validly drawn from the passage?

(A) Patrick does not understand why he is behaving in this way.

(B) Patrick is not an expert in psychology.

(C) Patrick is not certain of being able to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

(D) Unless Charles is an expert in some branch of psychology, Charles should not offer a solution to Patrick’s behavioral problem.

(E) If Charles is certain of being able to solve Patrick’s behavioral problem, then Charles does not understand why Patrick is behaving in this way.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 399
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: india
Thanked: 39 times

IMO

by xcusemeplz2009 » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:22 pm
IMO C,

wats the OA?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: 02 May 2009
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:27 pm
Post the reasonings.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:35 am
B because it can be logically derived.

Since no experts can solve other's problems for sure, Patrick wants to solve it himself. This implies that he is not an expert...I am thinking the question may be poorly written and should refer to a 'psychology expert' in the second sentence rather than just an 'expert'.

would be good to see some more explanations...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by ogbeni » Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:38 am
E because

Compare the statement in the stimulus:

Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. But no expert is certain of being able to solve someone else’s problem. Patrick wants to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

If Charles is certain of being able to solve Patrick’s behavioral problem (stimulus says that No expert is certain and this implies that Charles is not an expert), then Charles does not understand why Patrick is behaving in this way(because he is not an expert)


OA Please!! .

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Thanked: 12 times
Followed by:1 members

by krisraam » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:13 am
IMO E.

Thanks
Raama

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 393
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Location: Chicago
Thanked: 8 times

by riteshbindal » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:33 am
E IMO

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: 02 May 2009
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:56 am
obgeni cracked it. OA is E

But on G-day, No way I am going to get this right ...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:48 am
I am confused! how do you know that the first expert is of psychology branch and the second ref to expert is non-psychology types (I though the reference was to the same type of experts, i.e. psychology type....)...

would appreciate if someone could help me understand how they made that distinction from the passage...

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: 18 May 2008
Thanked: 12 times

Re: Patrick

by shahdevine » Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:41 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. But no expert is certain of being able to solve someone else’s problem. Patrick wants to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

Which one of the following conclusions can be validly drawn from the passage?

(A) Patrick does not understand why he is behaving in this way.

(B) Patrick is not an expert in psychology.

(C) Patrick is not certain of being able to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

(D) Unless Charles is an expert in some branch of psychology, Charles should not offer a solution to Patrick’s behavioral problem.

(E) If Charles is certain of being able to solve Patrick’s behavioral problem, then Charles does not understand why Patrick is behaving in this way.
Here's another approach:

In order for the conclusion to be valid, the conclusion has to follow with strict necessity from the premises. Validity is solely about the form of the argument, not content. There is no middle ground. So A through C get the boot. The argument mentions nothing about Patrick being an expert, his understanding or his certainty about doing anything. So to pick any of those answers would make the overall argument invalid.

D is a value judgement, which has to do with the content of the argument not the form. The word "should" is a dead give away.

E by elimination is the only one that works. It might not make sense, but its form is valid.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:48 pm
thanks shahdevine but it was still bugging me so I searched online and found another explanation (https://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102 ... page=0%2C1) ...hope it can be of some use.

IF you Understand, THEN you're an Expert:

U → E
(sufficient condition) → (necessary condition)


IF you're an Expert, THEN you're not Certain:

E → C/
(sufficient condition) → (necessary condition)

Through the transitive property, you get: IF you Understand, THEN you're an Expert and you're not Certain:

U → E/ → C/


4) The contrapositive of which is: IF you're Certain, THEN you're not an Expert and you don't Understand:

C → E/ → U/

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: 02 May 2009
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:12 pm
life is a test wrote:thanks shahdevine but it was still bugging me so I searched online and found another explanation (https://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102 ... page=0%2C1) ...hope it can be of some use.

IF you Understand, THEN you're an Expert:

U → E
(sufficient condition) → (necessary condition)


IF you're an Expert, THEN you're not Certain:

E → C/
(sufficient condition) → (necessary condition)

Through the transitive property, you get: IF you Understand, THEN you're an Expert and you're not Certain:

U → E/ → C/


4) The contrapositive of which is: IF you're Certain, THEN you're not an Expert and you don't Understand:

C → E/ → U/
This was really helpful

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

Re: Patrick

by BlindVision » Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:53 am
madhur_ahuja wrote:Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. But no expert is certain of being able to solve someone else’s problem. Patrick wants to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

Which one of the following conclusions can be validly drawn from the passage?

(A) Patrick does not understand why he is behaving in this way.

(B) Patrick is not an expert in psychology.

(C) Patrick is not certain of being able to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.

(D) Unless Charles is an expert in some branch of psychology, Charles should not offer a solution to Patrick’s behavioral problem.

(E) If Charles is certain of being able to solve Patrick’s behavioral problem, then Charles does not understand why Patrick is behaving in this way.
I'm curious how the name "Charles" could be in the answer choices, but not in the argument -- I am not sure if GMAT would set up a question like this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :P
Life is a Test

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: 22 Aug 2015

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 3:20 pm
The official answer is E. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain