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

Redeem

Weaken - LSAT

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

Weaken - LSAT

by voodoo_child » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:10 am
The vomeronasal organ (VNO) is found inside the noses of various animals. While its structural development and function are clearer in other animals, most humans have a VNO that is detectable, though only microscopically. When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations. It seems, then, that the VNO, though not completely understood, is functioning sensory organ in most human.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
A. It is not known whether the researchers succeeded in stimulating only VNO cells in the human subject's noses.
B. Relative to its occurrence in certain animals, the human VNO appears to be anatomically rudimentary and underdeveloped.
C. Certain chemicals that play a leading role in the way the VNO functions in animals in which it is highly developed do not appear to play a role in its functioning in humans.
D. Secondary anatomical structures associated with the VNO in other animals seem to be absent in humans.
E. For many animal species, the VNO is thought to subtly enhance the sense of smell.

OA - A

My question : I read the evidence again and again. How do I know whether " when researchers have been able to stimulate THE VNO cells the subjects reported subtle smell sensations" this can be weakened. This is the premise.

The sentence has used "THE VNO", denoting that VNO was stimulated specifically. Further, there are no "Conclusion" or "claim" markers in the above sentence.

Thoughts?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:36 pm
Thanked: 99 times
Followed by:21 members

by vk_vinayak » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:45 am
Conclusion: VNO is functioning sensory organ in most human.

Evidence: When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations.

Explanation: By stimulating the VNO cells in humans, subjects said that they experience smell sensation. Based on this researchers concluded that the VNO functions as sensory organ. To weaken this argument, we need to show that VNO doesn't necessarily funcion as sensory organ. Option A perfectly explains this, by saying that scientists might have stimulated other cells as well. This gives us a possibility that those other stimulated cells might have caused smell sensations in humans. Hence A undermines the argument.

P.S: Going forward, please place the OA under the spoiler.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
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 » Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:21 am
Received a PM on this one....

This LSAT question is from June 2002, the second logical reasoning section.

Okay so I think we need to go through this entirely from start to finish. First, you cannot weaken a premise. These must be accepted as true. So you must accept that "When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations."

Second, certainly we can identify the conclusion! "It seems, then, that the VNO, though not completely understood, is functioning sensory organ in most human." "It seems" is not just evidence right? That is a conclusion.

You should also understand what makes a conclusion a conclusion. Signal words are helpful but you must be able to identify the conclusion without them. I have something called the "Why Test?" which is the key to this understanding. The conclusion is the one about which you can ask "why?" or "what is the evidence?" and the rest of the argument is the answer.

For example, on this question, if I ask "Why does "it seem that the VNO is a functioning sensory organ?" Well the evidence provides the answer, because ""When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations." In this way we know that we have the correct conclusion. That is what makes something a conclusion, the presence of other evidence that supports it.

Premises do not have evidence to support them, they are the evidence. If you ask "Why?" or "what is the evidence?" about a premise there is no support. If I ask "Why do "most humans have a VNO that is detectable, though only microscopically"? There is no answer. That is because that is stated as a fact and not a conclusion.

So now we know what the conclusion is and what the evidence is and we can think about how to weaken this. This conclusion is "It seems, then that the VNO is a functioning sensory organ in most humans." You want to find something that would show that this is not necessarily true.

The premise has to remain true while the conclusion is not necessarily true. So it is true that "When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations." Yet it may not be true that the "VNO is a functioning sensory organ in most humans."

In other words how does stimulating those cells work, when the cells themselves maybe do not? Well if you have stimulated some additional cells, like the actual nose then it is not the VNO.

That is what A is saying. What if the researchers stimulated some other cells? Then that weakens the conclusion concerning the VNO.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:44 am
David@VeritasPrep wrote:Received a PM on this one....

This LSAT question is from June 2002, the second logical reasoning section.

Okay so I think we need to go through this entirely from start to finish. First, you cannot weaken a premise. These must be accepted as true. So you must accept that "When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations."

Second, certainly we can identify the conclusion! "It seems, then, that the VNO, though not completely understood, is functioning sensory organ in most human." "It seems" is not just evidence right? That is a conclusion.

You should also understand what makes a conclusion a conclusion. Signal words are helpful but you must be able to identify the conclusion without them. I have something called the "Why Test?" which is the key to this understanding. The conclusion is the one about which you can ask "why?" or "what is the evidence?" and the rest of the argument is the answer.

For example, on this question, if I ask "Why does "it seem that the VNO is a functioning sensory organ?" Well the evidence provides the answer, because ""When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations." In this way we know that we have the correct conclusion. That is what makes something a conclusion, the presence of other evidence that supports it.

Premises do not have evidence to support them, they are the evidence. If you ask "Why?" or "what is the evidence?" about a premise there is no support. If I ask "Why do "most humans have a VNO that is detectable, though only microscopically"? There is no answer. That is because that is stated as a fact and not a conclusion.

So now we know what the conclusion is and what the evidence is and we can think about how to weaken this. This conclusion is "It seems, then that the VNO is a functioning sensory organ in most humans." You want to find something that would show that this is not necessarily true.

The premise has to remain true while the conclusion is not necessarily true. So it is true that "When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations." Yet it may not be true that the "VNO is a functioning sensory organ in most humans."

In other words how does stimulating those cells work, when the cells themselves maybe do not? Well if you have stimulated some additional cells, like the actual nose then it is not the VNO.

That is what A is saying. What if the researchers stimulated some other cells? Then that weakens the conclusion concerning the VNO.
Thanks David for your detailed response. I was able to arrive at the correct answer when I did this problem, but I had some reservations.

Here's my doubt - the premise, which is accepted as true, states that "When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations". Doesn't it mean that the "researchers" are careful enough to stimulate ONLY VNO cells? Why are we questioning or doubting their ability to stimulate other cells too? In other words, aren't we doubting the PREMISE?

For instance, if I say that "Because it rained yesterday, I took the train the train to New York." Doesn't this statement mean that I took ONLY train and not helicopter or car? To me, answer choice A) states or, to some extent, makes me believe that researchers MAY not be knowing what they are doing. May be they stimulated epidermal cells in the foot. May be they stimulated ear drums or anything.

Can you please help me?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:15 pm
Dear voodoo-child

I also got a pm, so I'll chime in. :-)

Think about it this way -- suppose some wacked out researcher came up with the idea that the incisors, the canine teeth, played a role in human taste. Suppose this researcher put sugar-water specifically on the incisors, and then the subjects reported experiencing a sweet taste ---- not because the incisor plays any role in human taste, but because some of the sugar-water would inevitably drip onto the tongue, which would taste it. Biological systems are deeply interconnected, and unless you kill a living thing and dissect it, it's hard to separate closely aligned structures.

You wrote: "Doesn't it mean that the "researchers" are careful enough to stimulate ONLY VNO cells?" You are applying "dissection logic" to an "in vivo" situation. We don't know how the VNO were stimulated --- through direct touch? through a solution? a vapor? etc. etc. ---- some of these, and perhaps even all possible methods of stimulating the VNO, might also have an effect on surrounding cells. Chemicals diffuse, nervous impulses radiate, muscles twitch --- there are many many ways that even microstimulations in one focused and specific area of the body can have a broader effect. That, after all, is the very premise of acupuncture.

Your train/helicopter/car analogy is not apt. Those three are unambiguously different, and use of one has absolutely no impact on the others. It completely neglects the profound interconnection and interdependence that characterizes a living body.

Here's very different perspective. In classical Tibetan Buddhism, one famous argument is that you can't point at your nose. It's anti-intuitive, but as the argument runs, one's nose has no clear boundary, it doesn't start or stop anywhere, and therefore it's not distinct from the body as a whole. I'm not really doing this argument justice, and it doesn't matter whether you find it persuasive --- the point is, the homeostatic interconnection of a living being is an irreducible part of what it means to be alive, and to abstract that away is to miss something fundamental about biological life as such.

Yes, the researchers were "trying" to focus their simulation on the VNO, and perhaps the major stimulus was there, but that does not at all preclude effects on adjacent areas, including areas that might be primarily responsible for the sense of smell. Insofar as that did happen, it weakens the prompt argument.

Does that make sense?

Mike :-)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:42 pm
Mike@Magoosh wrote:Dear voodoo-child

I also got a pm, so I'll chime in. :-)

Think about it this way -- suppose some wacked out researcher came up with the idea that the incisors, the canine teeth, played a role in human taste. Suppose this researcher put sugar-water specifically on the incisors, and then the subjects reported experiencing a sweet taste ---- not because the incisor plays any role in human taste, but because some of the sugar-water would inevitably drip onto the tongue, which would taste it. Biological systems are deeply interconnected, and unless you kill a living thing and dissect it, it's hard to separate closely aligned structures.

You wrote: "Doesn't it mean that the "researchers" are careful enough to stimulate ONLY VNO cells?" You are applying "dissection logic" to an "in vivo" situation. We don't know how the VNO were stimulated --- through direct touch? through a solution? a vapor? etc. etc. ---- some of these, and perhaps even all possible methods of stimulating the VNO, might also have an effect on surrounding cells. Chemicals diffuse, nervous impulses radiate, muscles twitch --- there are many many ways that even microstimulations in one focused and specific area of the body can have a broader effect. That, after all, is the very premise of acupuncture.

Your train/helicopter/car analogy is not apt. Those three are unambiguously different, and use of one has absolutely no impact on the others. It completely neglects the profound interconnection and interdependence that characterizes a living body.

Here's very different perspective. In classical Tibetan Buddhism, one famous argument is that you can't point at your nose. It's anti-intuitive, but as the argument runs, one's nose has no clear boundary, it doesn't start or stop anywhere, and therefore it's not distinct from the body as a whole. I'm not really doing this argument justice, and it doesn't matter whether you find it persuasive --- the point is, the homeostatic interconnection of a living being is an irreducible part of what it means to be alive, and to abstract that away is to miss something fundamental about biological life as such.

Yes, the researchers were "trying" to focus their simulation on the VNO, and perhaps the major stimulus was there, but that does not at all preclude effects on adjacent areas, including areas that might be primarily responsible for the sense of smell. Insofar as that did happen, it weakens the prompt argument.

Does that make sense?

Mike :-)

Thanks Mike. I see your point. However, I have two follow-up questions - does the LSAT or the GMAT expect us to guess such "in vivo" situations? Realistically, there could be thousands of situations were a point stimuli wouldn't be possible. For instance, experiments with gases, liquids...etc.

Secondly, I checked Manhattan LSAT too. They say that the sentence "When researchers have been able to stimulate VNO cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations. " is a claim used as an evidence and hence can be weakened. For instance, it's not a hard fact such as the sky is blue. Can you please help me to spot the reasoning in the above "premise"? The sentence, at least to my knowledge, doesn't have any claim indicators. These are crucial problems because we shouldn't be questioning the premise.

Thanks for your detailed response. I am awaiting your insightful reply.

Thanks
Voodoo
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 » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:00 pm
Voodoo-

You do not weaken evidence. You do not even weaken conclusions. You weaken the link between the conclusion and the evidence (and sometimes between different pieces of evidence although that is very rare on the GMAT0. This is logical reasoning. You cannot weaken someone else's evidence without somehow checking the facts. You cannot check the facts during the test. It is a logical exercise. You accept the evidence that you have mentioned and then show how it does not lead to the conclusion. If you try to weaken the sentence you have named then critical reasoning will be more difficult than it needs to be.

also there is no need to think of the "in vivo" situation in particular. Mike was just giving you a hypothetical. You just need to understand that on critical reasoning words matter. If the evidence does not say that ONLY the VNO cells were stimulated then you cannot make that assumption. Mike was elaborating on this. You do not need to worry about the real world on the test. Please do not over think it.

best of luck.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:32 am
David@VeritasPrep wrote: If the evidence does not say that ONLY the VNO cells were stimulated then you cannot make that assumption. Mike was elaborating on this. You do not need to worry about the real world on the test. Please do not over think it.

best of luck.
David/Mike - Thanks for your response. Your statement "If the evidence does not say that ONLY the VNO cells were stimulated then you cannot make that assumption." raises another question in my mind. I came up with an example about traveling to New York. Not sure whether you saw it.


For instance, if I say that "Because the weather was bad, I took a train to New York." Does it mean that I could have taken not ONLY train but also a helicopter or a buggy. Essentially, if the sentence doesn't use the word "ONLY", we shouldn't be making such an inference.

Thoughts?
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 » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:06 am
That's right. You took the train - we know that - but ONLY the train? we do not know.

If I say my friend went with me to the movies, this does not mean that he was the only one that went with me.

The key to critical reasoning is to critical read exactly what is said and to not add to what is said nor subtract from it.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:52 pm
David and Mike,
Thanks for your response. I have a follow-up question about the discussion on the keyword "only" Let's take for example (Source: LSAT PT 36 - S1 Q19) :

Question :
"Although it has been suggested that Arton's play have a strong patriotic flabor, we must recall that, at the time of their composition, her country was in anything but a patriotic mood. Unemployment was high, food was costly, and crime rates were soaring. As a result, the general morale of her nation was at an especially low point. Realizing this, we see clearly that any apparent patriotism in Arton's work must have been intended ironically."

B-takes for granted that straightforward patriotism is not possible for a serious writer
C-takes for granted that ARton was attuned to the predominant national attitude of her time.

Conclusion - Any apparent patriotism in Arton's work must have been intended ironically.

Evidence1 - the general morale of her nation was at an especially low point.
Evidence2 - at the time of their composition, her country was in anything but a patriotic mood.

One of the assumptions that the author makes is that ONLY low morale caused Arton to write patriotic works. Doesn't it mean that the author was not patriotic for some other reason? Essentially, what B) says? I can see how C) is correct. But I am not able to rule out B). I believe that the above question and the original question are both based on the same "only/other possibilities" logic.

Thoughts?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:32 am
Dear voodoo-child:

First of all, since I am a GMAT expert but not an LSAT expert, it would be helpful if you could post the entire question with all answer choices, rather than assume that we all have access to the question. In this instance, I was able to locate the question on the web.

Although it has been suggested that Arton's play have a strong patriotic flavor, we must recall that, at the time of their composition, her country was in anything but a patriotic mood. Unemployment was high, food was costly, and crime rates were soaring. As a result, the general morale of her nation was at an especially low point. Realizing this, we see clearly that any apparent patriotism in Arton's work must have been intended ironically.
The reasoning above is questionable because it
(A) posits an unstated relationship between unemployment and crime
(B) takes for straightforward patriotism is not possible for a serious writer
(C) takes for granted that Arton was attuned to the predominate national attitude of her time
(D) overlooks the fact that some citizens prosper in times of high unemployment
(E) confuses irony with a general decline in public morale


So, if I understand, you agree that (A) & (D) & (E) are out. You have it down to (B) and (C).

We see patriotism in Arton's writing. That's also a piece of evidence --- don't forget that.

The author implicitly suggests that, if we looked at the time in which she wrote, and it happened to be a boom period in which love of the country was soaring, then we would interpret the patriotism in Arton's writings as genuine and sincere. This suggests that, under other conditions, it would be possible for a serious writer to write works of straightforward patriotism. Thus, the argument implicitly supports the opposite of (B), so (B) can't be the answer.

Evidence - we see patriotism in Arton's writing.
Evidence - times were rotten, and public morale was low when she wrote
Conclusion --- the patriotism in her writings cannot be sincere --- it must be ironic

Between the evidence and the conclusion, we made the leap from "the general public was not feeling good about the country" to "Arton was not feeling good about the country" --- in other words, what the general public was feeling was also what she was feeling. In other words, Arton was attuned to the predominant national attitude of her time, choice (C).

Look at what happens if you negate (B) and (C) --- when it negate an assumption of the argument, it has a devastating effect on the argument.

If you negate (B) --- sure, it's possible for serious writers to espouse fervid patriotism --- maybe that would be the case under more positive conditions, but it doesn't really weaken the argument that in dismal times, one loses the motive for real patriotism. Even if serious writer could be genuinely patriotic at other times, they likely would not be so patriotic when times are miserable. Negating (B) doesn't really weaken the argument.

If you negate (C) --- Arton was not at all feeling what her fellow citizen were feeling --- then if they had low morale, that would mean Arton was skipping along on Cloud Nine, whistling Dixie and sniffing air ---- then it would make no sense that she would be ironic in her patriotism. Negating (C) decimates the argument.

I think you were too hung up on the word "any" --- it's just an emphasis word --- in other words, the patriotism in her writings was 100% ironic and 0% sincere. That word doesn't really come into play in distinguishing between (B) and (C)

Does all this make sense?

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:15 pm
Mike@Magoosh wrote:Dear voodoo-child:

The author implicitly suggests that, if we looked at the time in which she wrote, and it happened to be a boom period in which love of the country was soaring, then we would interpret the patriotism in Arton's writings as genuine and sincere. This suggests that, under other conditions, it would be possible for a serious writer to write works of straightforward patriotism. Thus, the argument implicitly supports the opposite of (B), so (B) can't be the answer.
Mike,
I am really concerned because I got a completely different meaning out of the conclusion. For instance, say that I am a democrat (my audience doesn't know my allegiance) and not really happy with policies put forth by Mitt Romney. If I say that Mitt Romney's policies will enable the economy to experience better growth rate, then one of my readers (in this case, it is the author of the argument) could think that I am being sarcastic (or ironic in my attitude or disposition toward Romney). However, the author is completely ignoring the fact that I *could* be supportive of Romney's policies. Being a democrat, doesn't necessarily imply that I will always be ironic.

Bringing this argument to the problem at hand, I feel that the author assumes that Arton's works were patriotic because of the bad times (he specifically says "Realizing this"). He completely ignores the fact that Arton, out of pure innocence, could have written patriotic works. That's what is killing me about B). Essentially, just to restate B) - the author takes for granted (=that bad times caused Arton to write good patriotic stuff) that straightforward patriotism is not possible for a serious writer (=Arton couldn't have written patriotic works out of pure patriotic spirit.)

However, your explanation is completely 180 to what I have written. I am not sure where I am going wrong. Can you please help me ? :(

Voodoo
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:47 pm
voodoo_child wrote: Mike,
I am really concerned because I got a completely different meaning out of the conclusion. For instance, say that I am a democrat (my audience doesn't know my allegiance) and not really happy with policies put forth by Mitt Romney. If I say that Mitt Romney's policies will enable the economy to experience better growth rate, then one of my readers (in this case, it is the author of the argument) could think that I am being sarcastic (or ironic in my attitude or disposition toward Romney). However, the author is completely ignoring the fact that I *could* be supportive of Romney's policies. Being a democrat, doesn't necessarily imply that I will always be ironic.

Bringing this argument to the problem at hand, I feel that the author assumes that Arton's works were patriotic because of the bad times (he specifically says "Realizing this"). He completely ignores the fact that Arton, out of pure innocence, could have written patriotic works. That's what is killing me about B). Essentially, just to restate B) - the author takes for granted (=that bad times caused Arton to write good patriotic stuff) that straightforward patriotism is not possible for a serious writer (=Arton couldn't have written patriotic works out of pure patriotic spirit.)

However, your explanation is completely 180 to what I have written. I am not sure where I am going wrong. Can you please help me ? :(

Voodoo
Voodoo_Child

Keep in mind, the structure of the argument is not
1) Arton is a great writer.
2) Therefore, Arton could not be sincerely patriotic.

But rather
1) Times were bad and morale was low.
2) Therefore, Arton could not be sincerely patriotic.

The evidence is: people in Arton's time were generally bummed out about the economy and down on the government.
The conclusion is: Arton's patriotism could not have been sincere --- it must have been ironic.

Keep in mind, this is a *bad* argument --- we are being asked to weaken it. You seem to be complaining that it's a bad argument, but it's suppose to be! This is a weaken-the-argument question! In a weaken-the-argument question, they present a bad argument, and your job is to find the flaw.

You raise a totally valid objection: couldn't Arton have been, in all innocence, completely sincere in her patriotism? Yes, of course that's possible. You are 100% right. That, in and of itself, is the very point of the question. It's a flawed argument, you were suppose to find the flaw, and you nailed it! Just because everyone else saw the glass half empty doesn't meet she was also looking at the world that way. Everyone could have thought the system was dismal, and she could have kept her pie-in-the-sky optimism intact. It's flaw to think she felt the way everyone else felt. In other words, it's a flaw to assume that "Arton was attuned to the predominate national attitude of her time."

This is where your Democrat/Romney analogy is not apt at all. In your argument, being a Democrat is dispositional --- it's something about who you are. The argument here is not presenting evidence about Arton's essential qualities as a writer, and then saying, a writer that talented has to be ironic about politics. It's not a dispositional argument, but rather a situational argument, and in some ways, you are falling into a variant of the Fundamental Attribution error.

The evidence does not concern Arton herself at all --- it concerns the society in which she lived, the overall situation in which she found herself. It is 100% a situational argument. It made a leap from the way society as a whole was feeling to what her personal intentions must have been in her writings. That's way the assumption has to provide a connection between how society is feeling and how she was feeling. That's why (C) nails the essential flaw of the argument.

This is a flawed argument. You were asked to find the flaw. You found it right away, but instead of being happy that you found the right answer, you are complaining that the argument is flawed. Do you see? It's like complaining that the prompt in a SC question is grammatically correct, or complaining that in a math PS question, four of the answer choice aren't correct. You have gotten yourself into an argument with the structure of the question itself, getting upset that it presented you a flawed argument even though that's precisely what it was trying to do.

Am I making any sense?

Mike :-)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:52 pm
Mike,
Thanks for your detailed reply. I am still not convinced about B. The reason why I wrote Romney's example is to demonstrate that "bad economic times" cannot influence me to write good stuff about his policies. May be, I am a genuine economist who has evaluated all the policies recommended by Romney.

So far, both of us are on the same page. However, isn't B) restating what I just said above? The argument takes for granted that straightforward view (=good thought about Romney) is not possible by a genuine author?

Let me restate the premise and conclusion. I will also add some assumptions so that you can guide me where I am going wrong. This way, you will be able to see the problem in my thinking. I know that I am close to the real deal and definitely thinking in the wrong direction.

PRemise - Morale was low and the country was in anything but patriotic mood when Arton wrote patriotic plays
Conclusion - ANY apparent patriotism in her work must have been intended ironically.

Assumption#1 - Bad morale was the ONLY thing that influenced Arton to write patriotic plays ironically.
Assumption#2 - Nothing else could have influenced Arton to write patriotic plays
OR
Assumption#2 - Arton couldn't have been a serious writer who wrote patriotic plays out of her patriotism.

I think that Assumption #1 is restatement of C.

Assumption #2 is restatement of B.

Please help me :(
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:13 am

by stoy4o » Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:39 pm
Mike - is it also valid to say that B) is not correct because it mentions this new information about the author being "a serious author"? I understand that in weaken types of questions new information is acceptable but this new piece of info raised my doubts about B) being the correct answer choice. Because of it, I thought the answer choice was "irrelevant".

One more question - could please provide an explanation to why exactly E) is wrong? Is this a shell game answer or something else? I fell for it because I found the word "confuse" to be a good weaken keyword for the correct answer.

Thank you.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply