ChaseDream

标题: SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1) [打印本页]

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-28 11:21
标题: SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1)
Prompts for Flaw questions:

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it . . .
The reasoning in the argument is questionable because the argument . . .

Before you look at the answer:
1. Pinpoint the main conclusion in the passage. (Read my previous Main Point post.)
2. Separate the premises from everything else. After you find the main point, don’t assume that all the other statements are premises; they might include opposing viewpoints, background information, and concessions.
3. Ask yourself, “Do the premises, especially as they are stated in the passage, support the conclusion, especially as it is stated in the passage?” In other words, once you discard everything else, how well do the premises support the conclusion? The reason you want to focus on exactly what the premises and the conclusion state is that you do not want to subconsciously make the argument better than it actually is. Do not help the author. Look at what he actually said and then decide whether his evidence stacks up. (See “weaken” questions)

Make sure you are not reading anything into the conclusion that is not there. (“Thus, there is no evidence that Mar has life” is very different from “Thus, there is no life on Mars.”)

Wrong answers will often describe a flaw for a conclusion that the argument never actually reached. (For the conclusion saying that there is no evidence of life on Mars, the answer choice which states the argument “presumes, without providing justification, that the lack of evidence for a claim proves that the claim is false” would be wrong because the argument does not conclude that there is no life on Mars –only that there is no evidence of life on Mars.)

4. In your own words, describe the flaw. Try to avoid looking at the answers until you have forced yourself to describe at least one flaw or weakness in the stimulus.

Then look for the answer that most accurately describes what you described.

1. Focus on the active clause of each answer to help yourself move through the answers faster.

2. The correct answer must describe exactly what is happening in the passage. Make sure every word of that answer correlates with some part of the passage. In other words, translate the abstract terms into concrete terms from the passage. If there is only one example in the passage, for example, the answer choice with “examples” is probably wrong.

3. Check your answer by asking yourself, “If I remove this flaw, would that fix the argument?”

Common Flaws：

1. False contrapositives

Negating both conditions without switching them.
Switching both conditions without negating them.
The correct answer will usually include one of these words: necessary, required, sufficient, or ensured.

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

2. Causation

i) A happens before B does not mean that A causes B.

Might be a coincidence
Maybe C caused B
Maybe C caused A and B

ii) A happens with B does not mean that A caused B.

Might be a coincidence
Maybe B caused A
Maybe C caused B
Maybe C caused A and B

iii) the correct answer will usually include one these words: cause or effect.

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.

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

(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed

3. Attacking the author’s motive or actions, rather than the argument itself. Keep in mind that you need to focus on the logic stated in the argument, nothing else. Whether the author is angel or devil has no effect on the argument.

4. Attacking a weaker argument instead of the main conclusion: “What you are saying is that. . .”

5. Irrelevant authority

? Popular opinion. Most CDers think I am smart. Therefore, I am smart!
? Unqualified individuals. Since Yao Mng is a great athlete, if he says GMAT is a piece of cake, it probably is.
? Emotions.

6. Irrelevant premises

Ask yourself, “Do the premises strengthen or weaken the conclusion?” If not, they are irrelevant. Often premises will use the same words and thus appear relevant even though they are not.

7. Conflicting premise or assumptions

Example: “That family of four needs a dozen eggs to make a breakfast. Hua, the dad, did not buy enough eggs for his family because he bought only three eggs for each family member.”

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

8. Circular

Ask yourself, “Could the conclusion support the premises?” If so, then the argument is circular –it assumes what it is trying to prove.

SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（八）Assumptions

SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（十）Flaw (part 2)

作者: Kb24 时间: 2011-6-28 12:53
nice!

作者: jianaozhonghua 时间: 2011-6-28 14:57
没抢到沙发！请问本系列什么时候截稿啊？希望能在我考前啊。。。7月中旬那样我逻辑就牛了哈哈哈

作者: Kb24 时间: 2011-6-28 15:26
yeah you're late bro. haha! great stuff though. combined with Lawyer's framework, this collection will help you kick GMAT logic's ass.....

作者: perain 时间: 2011-6-28 16:31
I wrote my answers for the sample answers after each questions:

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.
My answer: D. ABCE seem to use the same pattern.

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed
My guess is A, but I'm not sure... I don't quite understand what D means even though I translate it into Chinese...

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

Answer is C. When I saw this question for the first time, I chose D incorrectly. I think D can produce a gap because this option mentions the customers who spend less time at their meal instead of the customers who sit on the tall tables and stools.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-28 19:57

I wrote my answers for the sample answers after each questions:

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.
My answer: D. ABCE seem to use the same pattern.

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed
My guess is A, but I'm not sure... I don't quite understand what D means even though I translate it into Chinese...

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

Answer is C. When I saw this question for the first time, I chose D incorrectly. I think D can produce a gap because this option mentions the customers who spend less time at their meal instead of the customers who sit on the tall tables and stools.

-- by 会员 perain (2011/6/28 16:31:14)

Hurray. You got it ALL correct.

mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so

The above flaw is demonstrated in the following argument:
Premise: If event A, then event B
Conclusion: If event B, then event A.

作者: guoqi 时间: 2011-6-29 04:31
标题: SDCAR2010 I have a question for u Thanks
Hey, SDCAR2010,
I am reading your analysis of CR, they are really really really good. Today, I just finished the section 9. There is a question that I didn't understand
even if I read your analysis of it. Here is the question.

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer
tall tables with stools because such seatingwould afford a better view of the
celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he supp

Here is your analysis
First of all, this is a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism. So let's analyze the argument.

Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.

Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly.
Therefore, profits would be up. Wait a minute. Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they
want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes
a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!

C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.

I have couple of questions for you and hope you can answer them. Thanks a lot.
No1 What you said here is that it is a must ture question, and we cann't use any new information. However, in your analysis, you said that "shouldn't they stay longer?" Isn't it a new information? The argument just said that they would like to watch celebrities, it doesn't mention the time at all. They can stay here for 1 minute or 100 hours, maybe most of them are satisified with just staying with famous guys for few minutes, so we don't know that part at all. How can you use " shouldn't they stay longer" as a weapon to attack the premise 2?

2 I don't qutie understand the your logic here. You said "premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior" . I checked the meaning of 'lingering" , it means "stay there longer than usual " and premise 2 indeed expresses that custoemrs will to saty there shorter. I am totally toally confused here. You said customers are staying longer whereas the argument said something different.

3 How to use Option C to solve this problem? You sai C points out the paradox, how does it point out the paradox. What C says is that a customer would like to stay shorter and this behaviour is different form generalization of lingering. This means most of the people would like to stay longer. If most of customers would like to stay there longer, it proves Premise 2 is wrong. Is this the right logic?

Thank you

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-29 11:21
Good question and good comments.

Looking closely, I would label No. 9 as a flaw question, whose flaw is that it contains a paradox, or conflicting premises.

Lingering here is a noun, not an adjective. So lingering means sojourn, tarriance, or plainly, stay.

What C) says is:
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table (stay longer to view celebrities) would be an exception to the generalization about lingering (diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables).

As to stay longer to see the celebrities part, it is just common sense, albeit a tricky one.

C) does not attack premises. C) simply points out that both premises cannot be valid at the same time for the conclusion to hold. Individually, both premises are correct. But when you combine the two premises together, you cannot get the conclusion the argument tries to reach.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-29 12:09
Here is another flaw question:
Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since---as the article points out---no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.
Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura’s argument?

(A) It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
(D) It uses the term “provable” without defining it.
(E) It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly between believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.

作者: jaze 时间: 2011-6-30 10:50
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

I really do not quite understand why the OA is C
My reasoning is this:
Background. However, premise, and intermediate conclusion because premise. Moreover, premise.
Therefore, premise, conclusion.

The author draws his conclusion based on two premise: one is the change will attract more people, and the other is people who seat at high tables will stay less time. That is, more people, higher fluidity.

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

I do not understand the relation between what option c says and what the premises says.
If the exception to the generalization about lingering can constrain people to seat at high table, then i know the Option can really weaken the conclusion. But what is reaction of people who would choose to sit at a tall table is not mentioned in the conclusion. I thought this answers is a relevant one.

作者: perain 时间: 2011-6-30 11:08

Here is another flaw question:
Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician Pierre de Fermat died in 1665 without leaving behind any written proof for a theorem that he claimed nonetheless to have proved. Probably this alleged theorem simply cannot be proved, since---as the article points out---no one else has been able to prove it. Therefore it is likely that Fermat was either lying or else mistaken when he made his claim.
Laura: Your encyclopedia is out of date. Recently someone has in fact proved Fermat’s theorem. And since the theorem is provable, your claim---that Fermat was lying or mistaken---clearly is wrong.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning error in Laura’s argument?

(A) It purports to establish its conclusion by making a claim that, if true, would actually contradict that conclusion.
(B) It mistakenly assumes that the quality of a person’s character can legitimately be taken to guarantee the accuracy of the claims that person has made.
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.
(D) It uses the term “provable” without defining it.
(E) It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly between believed to be false and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/29 12:09:21)

quite difficult.... the options are quite hard to understand.....however I think the answer is E.
Laura made the conclusion based on the assumption that the Pierre de Fermat was telling the truth so long as the theorem can be proved. But what if Pierre de Fermat indeed lied?

作者: jaze 时间: 2011-6-30 14:11

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/29 12:09:21)

premise:
no written proof claimed to have proved the theory.
no one else has been able to prove it
conclusion:
either lying or mistakenly

Laura's reasoning
provable --> not (either lying or mistakenly)
that is
A -> B
Laura's reasoning is not A --> not B

I would vote for C
but i understand those options poorly.
I do not make sense what option E is talking about.

作者: Kb24 时间: 2011-6-30 14:18
agree C. Saw this one in LSAT test. E is just too far away.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-30 18:54

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

I really do not quite understand why the OA is C
My reasoning is this:
Background. However, premise, and intermediate conclusion because premise. Moreover, premise.
Therefore, premise, conclusion.

The author draws his conclusion based on two premise: one is the change will attract more people, and the other is people who seat at high tables will stay less time. That is, more people, higher fluidity.

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

I do not understand the relation between what option c says and what the premises says.
If the exception to the generalization about lingering can constrain people to seat at high table, then i know the Option can really weaken the conclusion. But what is reaction of people who would choose to sit at a tall table is not mentioned in the conclusion. I thought this answers is a relevant one.

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 10:50:14)

Good analysis. This is a tricky question. The assumption that those who come to see celebrities and sit on the high stool would stay longer is never mentioned in the stimulus, but would be correct based on COMMON SENSE. It is a stretch, but still a reasonable stretch.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-30 18:56

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/29 12:09:21)

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 14:11:36)

Very good analysis. This is the right way to tackle the questions which involve formal logic. Well-done.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-30 18:58

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/29 12:09:21)

-- by 会员 perain (2011/6/30 11:08:06)

Nice try. The major reason against your reasoning is that an assumption is not a claim. A claim has to be stated in the stimulus.

作者: qiushuan 时间: 2011-7-5 17:15
If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

why the answer is D? I choose C. Because I think other are follow the pattern if A, Then B. If not A, then not B. Can u explain why i am wrong? thxs a lot!!

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-7-5 20:10
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
If successful, then adhere. If adhere, then successful.

(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
If late, then miss. If not late, then not miss.

作者: MarsTOF 时间: 2011-7-15 15:45
mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so

The above flaw is demonstrated in the following argument:
Premise: If event A, then event B
Conclusion: If event B, then event A.

不是很理解这个例子，我觉得你举得例子是原因结果的互换？跟充分和必要条件的混淆不是一个意思啊？请指教~

作者: verawu 时间: 2011-7-19 14:28
请问一下，我是刚开始GMAT的，逻辑不太懂。
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

这个题目不太能理解，求指教。

作者: xiejienan 时间: 2011-7-21 02:32

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 10:50:14)

Hi, I try to understand your concern and here is my opinion:
The core business and profitable product of a restaurant is food. The idea to set up the high tables is to attract people come to their restaurant and try their food. Providing the opportunity to see the celebrities is the unique advantage of the restaurant but not their income resource. To convert this advantage into profit, attract people to see the celebrities at the very beginning and promote their food is the optimal business strategy. People may just come for celebrities at the beginning, but if their love the food here they will come frequently.
I hope my opinion makes sense to you. By the way, my major is business~

作者: xiejienan 时间: 2011-7-21 02:34
Hi, I try to understand your concern and here is my opinion:
The core business and profitable product of a restaurant is food. The idea to set up the high tables is to attract people come to their restaurant and try their food. Providing the opportunity to see the celebrities is the unique advantage of the restaurant but not their income resource. To convert this advantage into profit, attract people to see the celebrities at the very beginning and promote their food is the optimal business strategy. People may just come for celebrities at the beginning, but if their love the food here they will come frequently.
I hope my opinion makes sense to you. By the way, my major is business~

作者: feifan1984 时间: 2011-7-30 11:53
Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed
My guess is A, but I'm not sure... I don't quite understand what D means even though I translate it into Chinese...

请问lz这个题为啥是A啊？我错选了C。A里面的correlation是指什么捏？谢谢

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-7-30 13:11

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed
My guess is A, but I'm not sure... I don't quite understand what D means even though I translate it into Chinese...

请问lz这个题为啥是A啊？我错选了C。A里面的correlation是指什么捏？谢谢

-- by 会员 feifan1984 (2011/7/30 11:53:58)

This is an old LSAT question. The correlation refers to "minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars." So driving minivans and larger sedans correlate to low accident rates. The author mistakenly thinks that driving minivans and larger sedans CAUSES the low accident rates. Therefore he comes to the conclusion that "trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident."

作者: mia113 时间: 2011-8-18 09:56
If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

Thanks very much sdcar2010, your post is really helpful
For the question 1, the correct choice is D. However, I'm not sure about whether the other options have reasoning flaw.
From my point of view, the options ABE, these are all reasonable, while C is wrong.
could you please answer my question. Thanks in advance.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-18 11:14
This is a formal logic/flaw question.

1st statement: If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. (If A, then B)
2nd statement: But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation. (If not A, then not B)

If you read my post on Formal Logic, you would know that the second statement is flawed: mistaken negation without reversal. For flaw question, you need to find the correct answer which commits the same flaw.

Answer choices:
A) If A, then B. If B, then A.
B) If A, then B. If not B, then not A
C) If A, then B. If B, then A.
D) If A, then B, If not A, then not B (Correct)
E) If A, then B, If not B, then not A.

Choice A) is also flawed since it is a mistaken reversal without negation. Choices B) and E) are logically correct statements.

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

Thanks very much sdcar2010, your post is really helpful
For the question 1, the correct choice is D. However, I'm not sure about whether the other options have reasoning flaw.
From my point of view, the options ABE, these are all reasonable, while C is wrong.
could you please answer my question. Thanks in advance.

-- by 会员 mia113 (2011/8/18 9:56:42)

作者: mia113 时间: 2011-8-19 09:45
Got it``!!!! thanks a lot`!!!

作者: wupenghui2000 时间: 2011-8-19 10:15
well done

作者: corrine90 时间: 2011-8-19 10:42
[quote]
This is a formal logic/flaw question.

1st statement: If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. (If A, then B)
2nd statement: But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation. (If not A, then not B)

If you read my post on Formal Logic, you would know that the second statement is flawed: mistaken negation without reversal. For flaw question, you need to find the correct answer which commits the same flaw.

Answer choices:
A) If A, then B. If B, then A.
B) If A, then B. If not B, then not A
C) If A, then B. If B, then A.
D) If A, then B, If not A, then not B (Correct)
E) If A, then B, If not B, then not A.

Choice A) is also flawed since it is a mistaken reversal without negation. Choices B) and E) are logically correct statements.

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

Thanks very much sdcar2010, your post is really helpful
For the question 1, the correct choice is D. However, I'm not sure about whether the other options have reasoning flaw.
From my point of view, the options ABE, these are all reasonable, while C is wrong.
could you please answer my question. Thanks in advance.

-- by 会员 mia113 (2011/8/18 9:56:42)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/8/18 11:14:13)

[/quote
I wrongly choose C, and now I can understand why C is wrong. But since B is logically correct, I want to know the flaw of B. Thank you.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-19 10:49
We are asked to find one answer choice which commit the same flaw. So the correct answer choice would not be logically sound. Rather, the correct answer choice has to be logically WRONG.

作者: corrine90 时间: 2011-8-20 08:13
Thank you, I got it. But I still confused about the concept of " logically correct". Does it mean the thing could happen?

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-20 10:33
Logically correct simply means there is no flaw in logic to reach this statement. In CR, we do not care if the the statements is true or false in the REAL world. We only care if it is true or false in the LOGICAL world.

作者: ff851223 时间: 2011-9-28 11:15
请问NN,你写的这些有参考其他的书吗？谢谢

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-9-28 20:21
No. Just my idiosyncratic way of thinking.

请问NN,你写的这些有参考其他的书吗？谢谢

-- by 会员 ff851223 (2011/9/28 11:15:15)

作者: QUARTZ7 时间: 2011-10-5 19:20
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

Dear SDCAR2010, for this question, I originally wrongly choose B and E. After reading your analysis and discussion, I think C is the right answer, because it points out the logic flawness of the author. However, B and E are used to weaken the conclusion rather than criticize the logic structure. Is my understanding right?
Thank you very much!

作者: QUARTZ7 时间: 2011-10-5 19:21
Besides, as you teach us, B and E don't correlate each word of the passage. Right?

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-10-5 20:29
B & E, both support part of the argument to gain more revenue by setting up high table to view celebrities.

作者: QUARTZ7 时间: 2011-10-5 21:17

B & E, both support part of the argument to gain more revenue by setting up high table to view celebrities.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/10/5 20:29:53)

Oh, yes~ I was careless. I still have a long way to go. Thank you!

作者: lq0 时间: 2011-10-6 23:24
妙！

作者: gmatdc 时间: 2011-10-19 05:59

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 10:50:14)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/30 18:54:27)

Dear sdcar2010,

I cansee why C is correct after reading your analysis. But can you point out why Dis incorrect please?
Myproblem is, if I read about the right answer I can make out why it is correct.But if I am to choose it on my own, I still think D is better than C sincethere is no stretch in getting at it. Isn’t D directly attacking the secondpremise where the arguer says that higher turnover will bring in higherprofits?
Thanks a lot

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-10-19 06:56

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 10:50:14)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/30 18:54:27)

-- by 会员 gmatdc (2011/10/19 5:59:42)

Less expensive meal does not equal less profit.

作者: gmatdc 时间: 2011-10-19 07:52
Thanks! I was thinking so hard to try to wrap my head around this yet still failed to figure it out... Loved your posts and thanks again!

作者: bonfin 时间: 2011-10-31 10:35
up

作者: 月照琳琅 时间: 2011-11-3 20:50
Thx again.

作者: Ellen影子 时间: 2011-11-19 22:03
as someone analysis
Laura's reasoning
provable --> not (either lying or mistakenly)
that is
A -> B
Laura's reasoning is not A --> not B

why notA--> not B

i don't understand those options
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.

thank u!

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-11-20 00:07

as someone analysis
Laura's reasoning
provable --> not (either lying or mistakenly)
that is
A -> B
Laura's reasoning is not A --> not B

why notA--> not B

i don't understand those options
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.

thank u!

-- by 会员 Ellen影子 (2011/11/19 22:03:17)

The original post had some typos. The following would be a better explanation:

Laura's premise is that the theory is provable. The fact that the theory is provable is necessary for the conclusion that Fermat has indeed proved the theory before his death. But this fact alone does not conclusively prove or sufficiently points out that Fermat has proved it. In other words, this fact alone is not a sufficient condition for the conclusion that Fermat has indeed proved the theory.

C points out this error in Laura's argument.

In terms of logic chain:

Joseph: Theory not provable --> Fermat might be lying or mistaken. Contrapositive: Fermat might not be lying or mistaken --> Theory provable

Laura: Theory provable --> Fermat was not lying or mistaken

作者: Ellen影子 时间: 2011-11-20 20:22
thank U soooooooooooooooooo much！
i got it!!!!!!!!!

作者: 情未浓 时间: 2011-11-27 16:24
can you give an exemple for "4. Attacking a weaker argument instead of the main conclusion",please.
I just don't understand what this situation is.

作者: lpbird 时间: 2011-11-28 13:33
你的头像总是很靓啊

作者: yjiang23 时间: 2011-11-29 01:10
标题: Question...
Hello, SDCAR2010. Thx for the posts. They are really helpful.
There is one thing I got so confused "Negating both conditions without switching them. Switching both conditions without negating them"

Can you please give a specific example regards these two concepts? I do read your example, it seems like "a matching question" to me. If A does, B does. If A does not, B does not.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-11-29 01:39
Original argument: If today is Monday, then I will go to school.

Correct argument: If I do not go to school today, then today is not Monday.

Wrong argument: If today is NOT Monday, then I will NOT go to school. (Negating both conditions without switching them)
Wrong argument: If I go to school today, then today is Monday. (Switching both conditions without negating them)

Hello, SDCAR2010. Thx for the posts. They are really helpful.
There is one thing I got so confused "Negating both conditions without switching them.Switching both conditions without negating them"

Can you please give a specific example regards these two concepts? I do read your example, it seems like "a matching question" to me. If A does, B does. If A does not, B does not.

-- by 会员 yjiang23 (2011/11/29 1:10:46)

作者: belindacqy 时间: 2011-12-2 07:31
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

Hi,sdcar. I've read all the discussion on the former pages, but i cannot fully understand your opinion.
So, i post my idea and leave it to you for discussion:
When i look at C, i find that it contains lots of abstract words, such as "generalization about lingering" and "exception".
Then i take a look at the premises, i find they are basiclly two key points:
1)why to choose tall seat---viewing.
2)the result----diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
However, i found that the second one is a COMPARISON. It did not say that diners seated on stools wont stay here for a LONG TIME, because diners seated on stools can stay here for 1 min, and diners seated at standard-height tables can stay here for 2mins. We can also say that diners seated on stools stay here for N hrs, and diners seated at standard-height tables stay here for N+1 hours.
Then, i go back to the choice C. "generalization about lingering", esp lingering means stay here for a LONG time. However, based on the premise, we cant deem the comparison as a directly saying that diners seated on stools stay here for a LONG TIME.
So the premise has nothing to do with the conclusion, which focus on the turn-over.(time sensitive). "would be an exception to the generalization about lingering" directly point out that diners seated on stools wont stay here for so long. However, from all the information given in the stimulas(esp. the comparison), we cant make this conclusion. As a result, the argument is vulnerable to criticism by saying "a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering"=diners seated on stools wont stay here for so long.

Can i make a further step to say that i should pay attention to the comparison(relative idea) in the stimulus? It may not point out an exact fact/ absolute situation.

Ahhh, hope you can understand my opinions.
Cheers.

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-12-2 08:54
Lingering here is a noun, not an adjective. So lingering means sojourn, tarriance, or plainly, stay. NOT stay here for a LONG TIME.

What C) says is:
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table (who would also stay longer to view celebrities) would be an exception to the generalization about lingering or common staying pattern (diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables).

作者: xiaoliupao 时间: 2012-1-30 00:33
here is my analysis, which has minor differences with previous one.

"no evidence" plus "others can not prove" -> either lying or mistaken

but laura only attacks one of the two premises with the state that "someone has proved it", which means the conclusion could still hold as "he is lying", as the "either or" relation in the conclusion.

if there anything wrong, please advise!

作者: 泾渭不凡 时间: 2012-2-3 04:32
照例，顶出来，困境区有很多XDJM要看呢~

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 10:25
30. (31790-!-item-!-188;#058&005444)

A city plans to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities such as parks, recreation centers, and libraries. One component of the city's plan is to require that developers seeking permission to build this new housing provide these additional facilities at no cost to the city.

Which of the following, if true, would point to a possible flaw in the city's plan?

(A) Developers would pass along their costs to the buyer, thereby raising the cost of housing units beyond the ability of likely purchasers to afford them.
(B) Light, nonpolluting industries have located in the area, offering more jobs and better-paying jobs than do the more-established industries in the area.
(C) Other towns and cities nearby have yet to embark on any comparable plans to attract new citizens.
(D) Most developers see the extra expense of providing municipal facilities as simply one of the many costs of doing business.
(E) Studies show that purchasers of new houses, especially first-time buyers, rank recreational resources as an important factor in deciding to buy a particular house.
亲爱的lz，我怎么也看不明白这道题目的前提和结论啊，这题该怎么分析呢？

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-2-10 10:53

30. (31790-!-item-!-188;#058&005444)

A city plans to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities such as parks, recreation centers, and libraries. One component of the city's plan is to require that developers seeking permission to build this new housing provide these additional facilities at no cost to the city.

Which of the following, if true, would point to a possible flaw in the city's plan?

(A) Developers would pass along their costs to the buyer, thereby raising the cost of housing units beyond the ability of likely purchasers to afford them.
(B) Light, nonpolluting industries have located in the area, offering more jobs and better-paying jobs than do the more-established industries in the area.
(C) Other towns and cities nearby have yet to embark on any comparable plans to attract new citizens.
(D) Most developers see the extra expense of providing municipal facilities as simply one of the many costs of doing business.
(E) Studies show that purchasers of new houses, especially first-time buyers, rank recreational resources as an important factor in deciding to buy a particular house.
亲爱的lz，我怎么也看不明白这道题目的前提和结论啊，这题该怎么分析呢？

-- by 会员笨蛋加油 (2012/2/10 10:25:56)

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 11:10
lz能否用另一种方法帮我理解一下题目？看不太懂这前提和结论的关系

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 11:45

-- by 会员笨蛋加油 (2012/2/10 10:25:56)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/10 10:53:01)

依然不明白啊lz。。。凭感觉能作对这道题，但是感觉这个argument不按套路走啊？？？

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-2-10 12:59
In order to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities, the city plans to require the developers (who are seeking permission to build new houses) to pay for these additional facilities out of their own pocket.

A) says that the builders will pass on the extra cost to buyers. Thus the price of the new houses will be inflated. As a result, the potential buyers might be turned away. The plan will fail.

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 16:39

In order to attract new citizens with new housing and new facilities, the city plans to require the developers (who are seeking permission to build new houses) to pay for these additional facilities out of their own pocket.

A) says that the builders will pass on the extra cost to buyers. Thus the price of the new houses will be inflated. As a result, the potential buyers might be turned away. The plan will fail.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/10 12:59:13)

嗯，lz这么解释我算是明白这题目的意思了。不过还有一点儿很纠结的事情需要求教，感觉在lz每部分举得例子中，每个argument的前提结论还算比较明显，看完所有帖子之后，回头再做OG和prep，想要根据一些套路去分析每一句话是什么成分，却发现OG和prep上的题目都没有很明显的前提和结论，就算是main conclusion的题目也不明显。我在反思是不是我把前提和结论给理解错了？就比如上题，我总是用因为所以或者if then去替换，而上题这类却不行。甚至我会感觉题目有好大篇幅都是在写background。。。说了这么老多也不知道我表达清楚了没有，望lz帮帮我~

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 17:24
还有哦，must be true 的题型，感觉很多argument中根本就没有conclusion，而是让我们来选conclusion。是我对前提和结论理解的不到位还是真的存在这种情况？

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 17:26

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/10 12:59:13)

-- by 会员笨蛋加油 (2012/2/10 16:39:15)

厄。。。回来继续问，像这种为了。。。而。。。也就是目的+方法的，那么目的是premise是方法是conclusion？怎么就是感觉如此别扭？？？

作者: 笨蛋加油 时间: 2012-2-10 19:12
67. (34143-!-item-!-188;#058&007613)

Transnational cooperation among corporations is experiencing a modest renaissance among United States firms, even though projects undertaken by two or more corporations under a collaborative agreement are less profitable than projects undertaken by a single corporation. The advantage of transnational cooperation is that such joint international projects may allow United States firms to win foreign contracts that they would not otherwise be able to win.

Which of the following is information provided by the passage?

(A) Transnational cooperation involves projects too big for a single corporation to handle.
(B) Transnational cooperation results in a pooling of resources leading to high-quality performance.
(C) Transnational cooperation has in the past been both more common and less common than it is now among United States firms.
(D) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations are not profitable enough to be worth undertaking.
(E) Joint projects between United States and foreign corporations benefit only those who commission the projects.
再举个例子解释一下我的疑惑到底在哪。您看这题，竟然用一个 renaissance 来判题，让我很纠结这逻辑题以后要怎么读。。。

作者: justeva 时间: 2012-3-1 13:34
对哦，接楼上的问~是不是所有argument里都有premise和conclusion呢~还是一些conclusion是隐藏的~？

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-3-1 22:02
Transnational cooperation among corporations is experiencing a modest renaissance among United States firms (Conclusion), even thoughprojects undertaken by two or more corporations under a collaborative agreement are less profitable than projects undertaken by a single corporation (concession). The advantage of transnational cooperation is that such joint international projects may allow United States firms to win foreign contracts that they would not otherwise be able to win (Premise).

This is the structure: [Conclusion], even though [Concencession], (because) [Premise].

ALL argument has a premise and and a conclusion.

作者: athenawujj 时间: 2012-5-17 14:12
35. Because of increases in the price of oil and because of government policies promoting energy conservation, the use of oil to heat homes fell by 40 percent from 1970 to the present, and many homeowners switched to natural gas for heating. Because switching to natural gas involved investing in equipment, a significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely.

The prediction that ends the passage would be most seriously called into question if it were true that in the last few years. （Flaw）
演绎题须两者都出现
A.   the price of natural gas to heat homes has remained constant, while the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has fallen sharply.
B.   the price of home heating oil has remained constant, while the cost of equipment to heat home with natural gas has risen sharply.
C.   the cost of equipment to heat homes with natural gas has fallen sharply, while the price of home heating oil has fallen to 1970 levels.
D.   the cost of equipment to heat homes with oil has fallen sharply, while the price of heating with oil has fallen below the price of heating with natural gas
E.   the use of oil to heat homes has continued to decline, while the price of heating oil has fallen to 1970 levels

Dear SDCAR,i don't understand why not chosE b?tHE KEY IS d

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-5-17 20:31
Notice the phrase "switch back"? That phrase limits the scope of the question to those who are currently using natural gas and who will switch back to oil.

B) basically has no impact on the decision of these people, because it does not give any info about oil heating.

作者: 松浦元 时间: 2012-5-22 21:24
SDCAR2010，你好~~，我这两天正在看你的总结，收获很多。不过我想问一下你，这个第一题（就是f the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.
Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.）
是不是因为原命题和否命题不等价。其他选项错的原因你能再详细解释下吗，因为我感觉B也是原命题和否命题不等价，，，，

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2012-5-22 22:35
The question you asked needs to find a flawed pattern in the correct answer choice the same as the flawed pattern used in the passage. So both the passage and the correct answer choice use the same flawed pattern.

Passage: If punish, then obligation. Therefore, if not punish, then no obligation. If A; then B. Therefore, if NOT A; then NOT B.

B) If B-day, then balloons. Therefore, if no balloons, then no B-day. If A; then B. Therefore, If NOT B, then NOT A.

B) in fact is NOT flawed. And B) is certainly not the correct answer.

作者: peccadillo 时间: 2012-6-28 22:22
is this B???

作者: clover033 时间: 2012-9-12 11:20
对第一道题目，用以下方式解释了以下，好像比较清楚。
1. If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

A. the law punishes littering
B. the city has an obligation to provide trash cans.
A->B, 是原命题

Not A. the law does not punishes littering
Not B. the city has no obligation to provide trash cans
Not A->Not B 是A->B的否命题。

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.

A. today is a holiday
B. the bakery will not be open
A->B 是原命题
B->A 是逆命题

(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
A. Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party
B. there are no balloons around yet
C. today is not her birthday
A&B are the premise, and C is the conclusion.

(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
A. only if most of the students adhere to the new regulations
B. the new regulations will be successful
A->B 是原命题
后句只是重新阐述了这个命题。

(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
A. my flight had been late
B. I would have missed the committee meeting
A->B 是原命题
Not A. my flight is on time (not late)
Not B. I would make it to the meeting (which means I won’t missed the meeting)
Not A->Not B 是A->B的否命题。

(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.
A. the law is enforced
B. some people are jailed
A->B 是原命题
Not A. the law is not enforced
Not B. no one is in jail
Not B -> Not A,是原命题的逆否命题。

所以这样归纳完，很容易找出flawed pattern一致的是答案D.
找pattern并不需要判断这个命题时候是真命题，所以只要概括出命题的逻辑就可以了。

作者: Amber1991 时间: 2012-10-11 20:51

Notice the phrase "switch back"? That phrase limits the scope of the question to those who are currently using natural gas and who will switch back to oil.

B) basically has no impact on the decision of these people, because it does not give any info about oil heating.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/5/17 20:31:05)

exactly the same with what i think, 太对了！

作者: guanyaquan 时间: 2012-12-27 09:51
i don't think the logic for c is like what you said.i think for c, it should be : B, if A; Since A, then B.
The latter part is simply repeating the former part.
How do you think?

作者: dadaisy 时间: 2013-1-11 09:13
那和现在很多人说欧洲车开起来稳，日本车轻不抗撞，买欧洲车的观念相违背了？本人还是转不过这个弯。。。。没救了

作者: 晓野的野 时间: 2013-3-25 21:51
mark之！感觉充分必要条件很容易弄混淆呃 ==

作者: haywood2013 时间: 2013-11-24 14:21
thx for sharing

作者: 醒醒Shine 时间: 2014-4-1 23:04
THX A LOT AGAIN.
You've let me realize that the flaw of how I'm reviewing GMAT is poor of reading comprehension!

作者: ZHENGXINDA 时间: 2014-5-8 22:57
can you tell me the answer in the example？

作者: berylzhang 时间: 2014-5-31 15:50

great!!!

作者: carnelian_li 时间: 2014-7-26 14:54
学习了！！！

作者: isecant 时间: 2014-10-9 20:36
内容一多起来脑子有点乱

作者: echogmj 时间: 2015-1-16 22:19
thx for sharing

作者: zacboy 时间: 2016-10-4 16:04
感谢分享！

作者: lmumumumumu 时间: 2017-12-14 06:55
感谢分享！

作者: sa0314 时间: 2018-6-9 13:24
Mark一下！

作者: Jessica_ydy 时间: 2019-6-21 13:54
感谢分享！

作者: a4803598912 时间: 2019-10-30 15:21
Mark一下！

作者: 我爱吃香菜 时间: 2020-7-24 19:05
感谢分享！

作者: Dominicz 时间: 2024-5-4 16:34

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-7-30 13:11
Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. ...

同意！

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)