Standard of living

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

Standard of living

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:48 am
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:51 am
IMO C

Siegfried is trying to object the Brunhilda's view : That's simply untrue

But the given example is actually consistent (not inconsistent ) with Brunhilda's view.
(Brunhilda is also saying the same thing.)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:55 am
Siegfried object B argument by saying that is "simply untrue"

However S offers an example which is same as B argument.

Pick C
--Anand--

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:57 am
OE for C:

(C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:12 am
adi_800 wrote:OE for C:

(C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument
what is OA then ?
I don't find any other choice near the the answer.

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:17 am
I want few more discussions to happen...
one advice would be to reconsider the choices that you eliminated too easily..

Source kaplan online tests...
Btw..can u solve the oder one frm kaplan....
road repairs...

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:20 am
Is it D?
--Anand--

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:31 am
IMO Brunhilda is trying to prove that current generation is not confident. However, Siegfried says that her father and she is already doing good. Means He/She is trying to say that he/She is already confident.

And that goes good with B. I answered B for this question. But OA is weired. Let Adi post the OA.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by adi_800 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:42 am
OA is A..

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:06 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:770

by prepgmat09 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:09 pm
adi_800 wrote:OA is A..
Could you please post the OE ?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:50 pm
adi_800 wrote:Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
A. It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
B. It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
C. It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
D. It is based on an unproven speculation about future events.
E. It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
Most of us would have seen "example" and "inconsistent" words and immediately marked C.
Even I did that only :)

but yes, NOT inconsistent is the TRAP. First of all, from the tone of both the guys, we can find out that they are not consistent.

Word ECONOMIST is another TRAP. Nowhere, it is mentioned that Siegfried is an ECONOMIST. So, how can he deny other's argument so easily and authoritatively.

Yes, here the case of authority plays its role. A normal person can not argue with (against) a doctor.