Critical Reasoning

If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.

Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?

A. If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.
B. If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an all-expenses-paid vacation. Joe earned an all-expense-paid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year.
C. A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads.
D. If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship.
E. All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team.

I will go with A. What is the OA?

the same here
OA is A.

why is this one A and not D? can somebody explain? thanks

cyrwr1 wrote:why is this one A and not D? can somebody explain? thanks

D --> unrestricted condition, Nobody said that if the student is not in the top 10%, he/she can't be awarded a scholarship.

I am stuck between A & B.

As per the argument i see no flaw in the argument. C,D,E each contains a reasoning flaw.

Cant decide between A & B.

Pls comment as why B cannot be the answer choice.

Can you answer one question: "Who is Joe?"
B hope this resolves

ankur.agrawal wrote:I am stuck between A & B.

As per the argument i see no flaw in the argument. C,D,E each contains a reasoning flaw.

Cant decide between A & B.

Pls comment as why B cannot be the answer choice.

I chose B too. I don't understand how A can be the answer.

Night reader wrote:Can you answer one question: "Who is Joe?"
B hope this resolves

ankur.agrawal wrote:I am stuck between A & B.

As per the argument i see no flaw in the argument. C,D,E each contains a reasoning flaw.

Cant decide between A & B.

Pls comment as why B cannot be the answer choice.

The argument is of type If A then B. and concludes in the form not B.

Option B is of type If A then B but the conclusion is like B thus A. which doesnot go with the argument.

Hope it helps.

crimson2283 wrote:I chose B too. I don't understand how A can be the answer.

Night reader wrote:Can you answer one question: "Who is Joe?"
B hope this resolves

ankur.agrawal wrote:I am stuck between A & B.

As per the argument i see no flaw in the argument. C,D,E each contains a reasoning flaw.

Cant decide between A & B.

Pls comment as why B cannot be the answer choice.

IMO A .

Hmm i remember solving this question during the MGMAT test.

bubbliiiiiiii wrote:The argument is of type If A then B. and concludes in the form not B.

Option B is of type If A then B but the conclusion is like B thus A. which doesnot go with the argument.

Hope it helps.

Bubbliiiiii got it right as to the crucial difference between A and B. Allow me to elaborate.

If the argument is in the form of if A-->B, it doesn't automatically follow that the opposite is true: i.e. A<--B.

in the argument above, if they reach a firth tie-breaker, the lower ranked player loses. Does that mean that if the opposite is true? If the lower ranked player lossed, it must have been by a fifth tiebreaker? Not at all - it is possible that the lower ranked player simply lost, regardless of the tie breaker.

Yet this is what B does: it presents the condition (sell more than others---->win a vacation), and proceeds to infer the opposite: the manger won a vacation, so he must have sold more than others. Not true - there may be other ways to win a vacation, e.g. sleeping with the boss.

what you can infer in this if A-->B situations is that not B DOES necessitates not A. If they reach a fifth tiebreaker, the lower ranked player loses. Therefore, if the lower player did not lose (not B), then they must have not reached the fifth tiebreaker (not A) - otherwise, the lower player would've lost. A follows this path, but B doesn't.