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

Redeem

Find the Flaw!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:7 members

Find the Flaw!

by Ozlemg » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:50 am
Time and again it has been shown that students who attend colleges with low faculty/student ratios get the most well-rounded education. As a result, when my children are ready to attend college, I'll be sure they attend a school with a very small student population.
Which of the following, if true, identifies the greatest flaw in the reasoning above?

.A low faculty/student ratio is the effect of a well-rounded education, not its source.
.Intelligence should be considered the result of childhood environment, not advanced education.
.A very small student population does not by itself, ensure a low faculty/student ratio.
.Parental desires and preferences rarely determines a child's choice of a college or university.
.Students must take advantage of the low faculty/student ratio by intentionally choosing small classes.

Altough it is apperant that the answer is C, on the other hand A raises some questions in my mind? Could someone elaborate?
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times
Followed by:53 members

by Frankenstein » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:01 am
Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am
Location: india
Thanked: 1 times

by dinaroneo » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:10 am
Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.
You said answer would be A if the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.' but how can low faculty/student ratio be the effect of a well-rounded education??
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times
Followed by:53 members

by Frankenstein » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:28 am
dinaroneo wrote:
Hi,
If the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.', then A would be correct.
But, here he is not considering a school with low ratio but he is picking the school with small student population. It doesn't ensure low faculty/student ratio.
You said answer would be A if the conclusion were 'I'll be sure they attend a school with a very low faculty/student ratio because it results in better education.' but how can low faculty/student ratio be the effect of a well-rounded education??
Hi,
We are actually stating that the causal relation is reversed. Because the authors believes that the cause and effect relationship is correctly stated, showing that the relationship is backwards (the claimed effect is actually the cause of the claimed cause) undermines the conclusion.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am
Location: india
Thanked: 1 times

by dinaroneo » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:20 am
Hey

Got your point! but then this is not weaken the argument question type, right?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:24 am
IMO C
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:57 pm
True! This is not a weaken question, but a flaw question is very similar it is just that you describe the flaw instead of stating the fact that would weaken. So treat them much the same.

I do not think that A is an appropriate answer choice if we are looking to reverse causation.

A low faculty/ student ratio can be a cause of well - rounded education. But how can a well - rounded education be the cause of a low faculty/ student ratio?

That makes no sense from a logical perspective.

I think in this case if it were a weaken question you might want to find an alternate cause but to reverse the cause is tough.

Here is one where the causes can be reversed - it is an LSAT question. Those who own a laptop make more money so owning a laptop is the cause of higher pay. Of course we can say the earning more money will have a better chance of owning a laptop so the cause is reversed.

But on this question we might have an alternate cause such as an active student population results in well-rounded education.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1