I bet U miss CR 2

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

I bet U miss CR 2

by gmatmachoman » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:10 am
Politician: Those economists who claim that
consumer price increases have averaged less
than 3 percent over the last year are mistaken.
They clearly have not shopped anywhere
recently. Gasoline is up 10 percent over the last
year; my auto insurance, 12 percent;
newspapers, 15 percent; propane, 13%; bread,
50 percent.

The reasoning in the politician's argument is most
vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the
argument

(A) impugns the character of the economists rather
than addressing their arguments
(B) fails to show that the economists mentioned are
not experts in the area of consumer prices
(C) mistakenly infers that something is not true
from the claim that it has not been shown to
be so
(D) uses evidence drawn from a small sample that
may well be unrepresentative
(E) attempts to persuade by making an emotional
appeal
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:14 am
Location: Atlanta
Thanked: 17 times

by pandeyvineet24 » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:17 am
i think it should be D.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:24 am
Explanations Plz!!

Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:39 pm
Btw C & D - I would go for D

Taking few samples will not confirm that something is wrong. It is possible that other samples would have a counter effect on the samples stated by the politician.

C also seems plausible. OA pls.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:42 am
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:1 members

by hitmewithgmat » Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:29 pm
Agree with D.
This argument seems to rely on the author's provincial and narrow scope. It's like seeing the universe with the telescope for a few seconds and say that you see the whole universe. You only see the tiny part of universe, if you know what I mean.

Example is unrepresentative.
Disclaimer-I am not a GMAT savvy yet, but I am learning everyday with my fellow beatthegmat citizens.

I AM DETERMINED TO CRASH/NIX OUT/ATTACK BRUTALLY/CRACK VERBAL PART OF GMAT. ROAR!

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:19 pm
I think it should be - D

The politician mentions a few things with price increases. He has highlighted just a few things from thousands of consumer products. The argument talks about average consumer prices and the politician is talking about individual price rise.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

by 2010gmat » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:51 pm
d for me too

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: South Korea
Thanked: 4 times

by sadullaevd » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:03 am
between C and D, i would pick D.

In sampling, u need to calculate overall effect, instead of relying on several specific
conclusions(car,insurance and etc). Its more narrow scope if you count only several inputs instead of all.

Please OA.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:04 am
OA D

All ur Explanantions were well supported by the Argument...

Cheers