Test: Flaw Questions - GMAT MCQ

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

The argument concludes that in order to attract as many active listeners as possible, record labels should conduct maximum marketing activities in the mountain states and not in the coastal ones because most of the people in MS listen to music in an active manner, whereas, most people in CS listen to music in a passive manner.

Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion.  We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would be a logical gap in author’s reasoning used to reach the stated conclusion.

Linkage#1 – (ref. logical structure)

• Falsification Condition:  What if the overall population of CS is significantly greater than that of MS? The phrase “most of the people” means “at least 51% of the people”.  Even though the proportion of active listeners is lower in CS, it’s possible that absolute number of active listeners is greater in CS than in MS if the total population of CS is more than that of MS. Clearly, in such a case, the recommendation will not be fruitful and thus the conclusion will not hold.

• Flaw:  The argument is vulnerable to the criticism that it confuses the proportion of people with absolute number of people and thus while drawing the conclusion it doesn’t take in account the total population of both the regions.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

Answer Choices

A

The author doesn’t take into account the possibility that there might be far fewer restaurants and pubs, places where music plays in the background, in the mountain states.

Incorrect- Irrelevant

The reason for number of listeners is not important to the argument.

B

The author doesn’t consider listeners who consume their music in both possible ways.

Incorrect- No flaw

The argument does categorise the profile of listeners based on how these listeners primarily listen to music. This fact takes care of even those listeners who possibly consume music in both ways.

C

Coastal states can have more active listeners than mountain states.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1.  CS can have more population than MS so that the absolute number of listeners in CS is more even when the proportion is lesser.

D

The author does not account for the fact that listening to music in an active way in the mountain states may only be a passing phase.

Incorrect – Irrelevant

The author makes the recommendation on the basis of studies conducted over a decade. Hence, the “passing phase” angle is not relevant here.

E

Word of mouth recommendations can sometimes be more effective than marketing activities.

Incorrect – Irrelevant

The argument only focuses on marketing activities and thus comparative effectiveness of word of mouth recommendations is not relevant to the argument.

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

This is a causal argument.

The conclusion states that General Motors is spending significantly less on marketing its convertible car Volt than Toyota is spending on marketing its car Toyota Prius. The conclusion is based on the fact that despite several similarities such as time of launch, functionality and price and the fact that Volt has won the prestigious ‘car of the year award’, the Prius has sold 4 times as many cars as Volt has. Clearly, the author thinks the difference in the sales of cars is due to spending on marketing.

Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion.  We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would a logical gap in author’s reasoning while reaching the conclusion.

Linkage#1 –

• Falsification Condition:  What if General Motors expenditure on the marketing of Volt is the same as Toyota’s spending on the marketing of Prius and some other factor has led to the difference in the number of card sold? For instance, it’s possible that the marketing techniques opted by Toyota are more impactful than the techniques opted by GM. In this case, even though the expenditure is the same, Prius can sell more cars due to the effective marketing plan and thus the conclusion will not hold.

• Flaw:  The argument is vulnerable to the criticism that it fails to consider any other causes that might have led Prius to sell more than four times as many cars till now as Volt has.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

Answer Choices

A

It does not take into consideration the perceived value of the “Car of the Year” award.

Incorrect - No flaw

The author mentions this award and says that Prius sold more units in spite of Volt’s receiving this award. Now if we say that the perceived value of the car was low, we cannot argue that this factor could have led to the difference in the sales as the argument doesn’t provide any link between a car’s winning an award and its sales.

B

It assumes without any basis that all cars with the same functionality and price range should sell equally.

Incorrect - No flaw

The author is only attributing a cause for the vast difference in sales. By no means, this attribution indicates that the author assumes that the cars should have sold equally. Also, the scope of the discussion is limited to just these two cars and not “all” cars.

C

It does not consider that it could be a conscious decision of the management at General Motors to spend less money on the marketing of Volt in the beginning and instead use the money to expand dealerships.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

First of all, we don’t even know whether there was a difference in the expenditure. Secondly, the argument is not about what led to the less spending but instead what led to the difference in sales.

D

It fails to consider that there could be other possible causes for the difference in the sales of Volt and Prius cars.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1.  It states that there could be some other factors such as company’s strategy or marketing plan that might have led to the difference in sales of Volt and Prius cars. The argument ignores any such possibility.

E

It fails to take into account other cars launched by Toyota during the same time.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

This option tells us that the argument fails to consider other cars launched by Toyota during the same time. As the argument is about Volt and Prius, not taking other cars into account is not a basis for criticism

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

In order to see how Charlie objected to Alan’s argument, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on the reasoning in both the arguments.

We would first look at the argument presented by Alan and then see which strategy Charlie has used in his objection. Let’s look at both the arguments:

Alan’s Argument

Conclusion: Extensive industrialization must be promoted for the welfare of a nation.

Reasoning: Industrialization helps in achieving a variety of social objectives.

Charlie’s Argument

Conclusion: A nation should promote the positive impacts of industrial development while limiting or eliminating its negative impacts.

Reasoning: Extensive industrial processes can have negative environmental impacts which threaten the economic and social welfare of a nation.

Charlie’s reasoning suggests that Alan should also consider the negative impacts of extensive industrialization. Note: While drawing his conclusion, Alan has only considered positive impacts of industrialization.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

Answer Choices

A

claiming that Alan has exaggerated the positive impacts of industrialization. 

Incorrect - Irrelevant 

Charlie doesn’t dispute the extent of the positive impacts stated by Alan. 

B

showing that Alan has based his argument on a limited understanding of the impact of industrialization.

Correct

This option is written along the lines of pre-thinking.

C

rejecting Alan’s argument as flawed.

Incorrect - Irrelevant 

Charlie neither disputes the positive impacts indicated nor the conclusion drawn by Alan. He only raises a consideration that should be accounted for while implementing Alan’s suggestion.

D

contradicting the evidence that Alan has used to support his argument.

Incorrect - Irrelevant 

As stated earlier, Charlie doesn’t dispute the positive effects listed by Alan.

E

suggesting that the positive impacts of industrialization have severe drawbacks that Alan has not taken into account.

Incorrect - Irrelevant 

Charlie does not suggest severe drawbacks of the positive effects listed by Alan. Instead, he brings forth certain separate negative impacts of extensive industrialization.

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

The conclusion states that this observation goes against the claim that such spots are most likely to attract pilgrims over the age of 50. The observation is that people in their early twenties are the ones making the reservations at the offices. 

Pre-Thinking Approach

Let’s see how we can find a flaw in the argument.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion. Thus the way to look for a flaw in the argument is to understand whether the author uses sound logic to arrive at the conclusion.

Linkage#1 –Since the directive was first published in national newspapers, a huge rush of people, mostly in their early twenties, has been witnessed across the booking offices that have exclusive rights to offer tours to the spot.

But what if the people booking the tickets are different from the ones going on the pilgrimage? What if young people are booking tickets for their parents or grandparents? In other words, the author’s argument assumes that:

The people making the bookings are the ones going on the pilgrimage.

However, such an assumption is unwarranted. As stated earlier, it is possible that the young people observed at the booking offices were making reservations for elderly members of their families.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

Answer Choices

The author fails to consider that the number of tickets booked this year may differ from the number of pilgrims who travelled to the spot five years back.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

There is no comparison between the two time-periods. Hence, this information is completely immaterial to the argument.

B

The author fails to consider that the regional booking offices can also offer tickets to other pilgrim spots.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

The author’s argument is not dependent on the number of tickets sold to one particular pilgrim spot but instead on the age-demographics of the people buying tickets at various booking offices.

C

The author fails to distinguish between people who book tickets from the counters and the ones who travel.

Correct

This option is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per linkage 1.

D

The author fails to consider that the religious sentiments of the young generation can change in five years.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

There is no comparison between the two time-periods. Hence, this information is completely immaterial to the argument. 

E

The author does not supply any information on the proportion of booked tickets that end up getting cancelled in the last moment.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

The proportion of booked tickets that get cancelled does not affect the conclusion of the argument. 

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

The author concludes that total number of films with poor BO collections directed by AWDs would be greater than total number of films with poor BO collections directed by NAWDs. The conclusion is based on the fact that AWDs are more likely to direct a film with CS, and irrespective of the awards won by the director, films with CS are more likely to perform worse at box office than films without CS. All other factors behind poor performance of films at box office are unrelated to awards won by the directors.

 Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion.  We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would show a logical gap in the author’s reasoning while reaching the conclusion.

Linkage#1 –

• Falsification Condition:  What if the total number of films directed by NAWDs is significantly more than that directed by AWDs? In such a case, there may not be more films with poor BO collections with AWDs than with NAWDs.

• Flaw:  The argument is vulnerable to the criticisms that there is an abrupt jump from the premises given to the conclusion drawn. The argument has arrived at the conclusion without comparing the actual total number of films made by Academy Award winning directors and the ones made by the rest of the directors.

To understand the same, please consider the following scenario:

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

Answer Choices

A

It ignores the fact that a film that does not do well on the box-office may eventually do well when broadcasted on TV.

Incorrect - No flaw

This statement is of no relevance to the argument since the argument is concerned with the performance of the films only at the box office.

B

It fails to consider a scenario in which the number of films directed by directors who have not won Academy Awards is significantly more than that directed by directors who have won Academy Awards.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1. It points out that the argument does not compare the actual total number of films made by AWDs and NAWDs. If we see the pre-thinking example, we can notice that the author’s conclusion is incorrect for the particular scenario.

C

It identifies one aspect of the films as the sole determinant of their box office performance without considering other possible aspects.

Incorrect - No flaw

This statement is incorrect since the passage does talk about “other factors” besides a complex storyline that determine a film’s performance at the box office. The passage says that all other factors are not related to awards won by directors.

D

It fails to consider a scenario in which directors may be aware of the fact that a complex storyline may not translate into a successful box-office collection.

Incorrect - No flaw

The awareness of directors regarding the eventual box-office performance of their films is of no relevance to the author’s conclusion.

E

It fails to factor in the number of films with poor box-office collections that were directed by Academy Award-winning directors and that ultimately won critical acclaim.

Incorrect - No flaw

This statement is irrelevant since the author’s conclusion is concerned with only the box-office performance of such films.

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

1. Internet Geek refutes the conclusion by providing alternate reason for the decline in print sales.
2. Literary Scholar supports the conclusion and provides reason for the decline in reading.  He also suggest solution to re-ignite the sales.

Answer Choices

A

The Internet Geek supports the conclusion and provides an explanation for the observed phenomena while the Literary scholar refutes the conclusion and provides an alternate hypothesis.

Only the Literary Scholar supports the conclusion.  The Internet Geek does not support the conclusion.  He presents alternate explanation for the observed phenomena.    All portions marked in red are incorrect.

B

The Internet Geek provides and alternate explanation to an observed phenomena while the Literary Scholar provides a recommendation and supports the conclusion

Correct choice. 

C

The Internet Geek and The Literary Scholar support the conclusion providing a supporting evidence  from their respective fields

Only the Literary Scholar supports the conclusion.  Also none of them provide supporting evidence.  The Literary Scholar provides reasoning and solution for the observed phenomenon.

D

The Internet Geek provides the circumstances under which the conclusion could be true while the Literary scholar contrasts the writing styles of 2 eras.

Internet Geek does not support the conclusion in any circumstance.   We may consider the comparison stated by Literary Scholar as contrasting the writing styles of Shakespearean era and modern era.

E

The Internet Geek challenges the premise of the conclusion while the Literary scholar suggests solutions to address the stated fact.

Internet Geek does not challenge the premise – the decline in sales of print.  He challenges the conclusion.

To evaluate which of the following options does NOT make the argument logically correct, let's analyze the initial statements and the implications of each option:

- The argument states that Vernia's output > Brownland's output and Sylvania's output > Borodia's output. The conclusion drawn is that Vernia's output > Borodia's output.

Let's look at each option:

1. **Brownland’s sugarcane output was greater than Borodia’s.** This suggests a chain that could support the conclusion if we assume a transitive property (Vernia > Brownland > Borodia), making the argument stronger.

2. **Vernia and Sylvania produced the same amount of sugarcane.** This implies that Vernia and Sylvania are at the same level, but it does not directly impact the logic connecting Vernia's production to Borodia's, except it places Vernia on par with Sylvania, which is already above Borodia.

3. **Vernia’s sugarcane output was less than that of Sylvania.** This places Vernia below Sylvania. Since Sylvania > Borodia, and Vernia < Sylvania, it still allows for Vernia > Borodia but weakens the direct comparison by introducing uncertainty about Vernia's relative production to Borodia.

4. **Brownland and Sylvania produced the same amount of sugarcane.** This suggests that since Vernia > Brownland (and thus Sylvania), it could indirectly support Vernia being above Borodia, assuming transitive properties and no information to the contrary.

5. **Sylvania produced less sugarcane than Brownland.** This does not directly support the conclusion that Vernia > Borodia based on the given information. It introduces a hierarchy where Brownland > Sylvania > Borodia, but since Vernia is only said to be greater than Brownland, without knowing the exact quantities, this does not strengthen the argument that Vernia must have produced more than Borodia in a way that's directly relevant to the initial statements.

Option **3. Vernia’s sugarcane output was less than that of Sylvania** is the one that does NOT make the argument logically correct, as it introduces a comparison that might imply Vernia could potentially be closer to Borodia's output, introducing doubt rather than solidifying the conclusion that Vernia must have produced more than Borodia without additional context. However, the question asks for an option that does not make the argument logically correct, assuming the argument is aiming to solidify Vernia > Borodia directly. Each option except for **5. Sylvania produced less sugarcane than Brownland** affects the conclusion's validity directly. Option 5, under strict logic, does not directly impact the conclusion that Vernia > Borodia in a manner that supports it unequivocally; it provides indirect information about Sylvania's and Brownland's outputs relative to each other but does not inherently affirm Vernia's production over Borodia's without additional assumptions. Therefore, upon reconsideration, **option 5** may be seen as less directly supportive of the argument's conclusion compared to the direct implications of the other statements, but option 3 introduces a scenario that could be seen as not necessarily strengthening the argument but rather complicating it by suggesting a ranking where Vernia could still be above Borodia but does not directly support the conclusion in the context of strengthening the logical sequence towards Vernia being the highest producer. Each option needs to be evaluated in the context of directly supporting the argument's intended conclusion, and the question's framing suggests looking for direct logical support rather than indirect implications.