Test: Similar Reasoning - GMAT MCQ

Let's analyze the given options to determine which one is the best match.

(A) The argument suggests that Henry's parents insist he eat breakfast for his health, but their own behavior contradicts this concern. This argument is structurally similar to the passage because it highlights the discrepancy between someone's stated position and their actions. However, it does not directly address the topic of human rights violations or diplomatic relations, so it is not the best match.

(B) This argument discusses Professor Walsh's policy of only accepting typed term papers, which seems inconsistent with her ability to read handwritten material. While it shares the structure of highlighting a discrepancy between stated policy and personal behavior, it does not address the topic of human rights violations or diplomatic relations, making it less relevant to the passage.

(C) The argument discusses James claiming to steal because he was hungry, but it is pointed out that food was readily available, implying that hunger cannot fully explain his theft. While this argument also highlights a discrepancy between someone's stated motive and their actual behavior, it does not address the specific context of human rights violations or diplomatic relations, making it less applicable to the passage.

(D) In this argument, Armand declines Helen's invitation to dinner, citing prudence in socializing with coworkers. However, it is revealed that he goes to a movie with another coworker, suggesting that his concern for prudence does not fully explain his refusal. This argument shares the structure of highlighting a discrepancy between stated reasons and actual behavior, similar to the passage. Moreover, it deals with interpersonal relations and choices, making it a reasonable match for the topic of diplomatic relations.

(E) The argument discusses the claim that there are fewer good teachers because of low salaries. However, it points out that teachers have always been poorly paid, suggesting that low salaries cannot fully explain the perceived decline in teacher effectiveness. While this argument highlights a discrepancy between perceived causes and the actual situation, it does not directly address the topic of human rights violations or diplomatic relations, making it less relevant to the passage.

After analyzing the options, we can see that option (D) is the best match for the argumentative structure presented in the passage. It shares the structure of highlighting a discrepancy between stated reasons and actual behavior, and it deals with interpersonal relations and choices, similar to the context of diplomatic relations discussed in the passage.

The flawed reasoning in the argument can be identified as a logical fallacy known as "composition." This fallacy occurs when one assumes that what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole. In this case, the argument assumes that because in every case of political unrest there was an unknown person or persons organizing and fomenting it, there must be a single mastermind behind all the cases.

The reasoning in option (C) closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument. It states that every citizen of Edmonton has a social insurance number, and therefore concludes that there must be one number that is the social insurance number for all citizens of Edmonton. This assumes that what is true for individual citizens must also be true for the entire group, which is an incorrect inference.

Let's examine the other options to understand why they are not the best choice:

(A) This option commits the fallacy of division, which is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It assumes that what is true for the whole (average of all Chicago drivers' license numbers) must also be true for the individual (the number on a single driver's license).

(B) This option does not commit a fallacy. It simply states that every telephone number in North America has an area code, which is a true statement. It does not make any unwarranted conclusion or assumption.

(D) This option commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. It assumes that because losing a single hair is insignificant, no one who has a full head of hair at twenty will ever become bald. This is an oversimplification of the complex factors that contribute to hair loss.

(E) This option commits the fallacy of faulty causation. It assumes that because every moment in Vladimir's life is followed by a later moment, his life will never end. This overlooks the fact that there are other factors, such as mortality and aging, that determine the end of a person's life.

In conclusion, option (C) is the most appropriate choice because it closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument and commits the same fallacy of composition.

The situation described in the question relates to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which allows developers to use land inhabited by endangered species in exchange for promises to preserve critical habitat or provide replacement land nearby. The question asks which principle most closely conforms to this situation.

(A) In order to avoid protracted legal battles, environmentalists should compromise with developers.
This answer choice does not align with the situation described. The HCP is a compromise between developers and environmentalists, but it does not explicitly mention the need to avoid legal battles.

(B) Developers should adhere only to those environmental laws that are not overburdensome.
This answer choice does not accurately represent the situation. The HCP allows developers to use land inhabited by endangered species, which would typically be prohibited under environmental laws. It does not imply that developers should adhere only to less burdensome environmental laws.

(C) Laws should not be designed to serve the interests of all the parties concerned since they are often so weak that no one's interest is served well.
This answer choice does not reflect the situation described. The HCP is a specific law designed to address the interests of both developers and environmentalists by providing a compromise.

(D) Laws should be fashioned in such a way as to reconcile the interests of developers and environmentalists.
This answer choice aligns closely with the situation described. The HCP is a law that allows developers to use land inhabited by endangered species while also requiring promises to preserve critical habitat or provide replacement land nearby. It represents a balance between the interests of developers and environmentalists.

(E) The most effective means of preserving endangered species is to refrain from alienating property owners.
This answer choice does not capture the essence of the situation described. While the HCP does involve property owners, its primary focus is on preserving endangered species by allowing developers to use the land while still implementing measures to protect critical habitat or provide alternative land.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D) - Laws should be fashioned in such a way as to reconcile the interests of developers and environmentalists.

The principle illustrated by Evan's criticism of vegetarians who eat seafood is the idea of extending the benefit of the doubt in order to avoid potential harm or wrongdoing. Evan argues that if there is uncertainty about whether sea animals can experience pleasure or pain, it is better to err on the side of caution and refrain from consuming seafood in order to prevent potential harm.

Now let's analyze each answer choice and see which one closely conforms to this principle:

(A) The situation described in this answer choice involves uncertainty about whether the money has been repaid to Farah. In order to be sure, the person decides to give her the money now. This aligns with the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt by taking action to avoid potential harm or wrongdoing. Therefore, this answer choice closely conforms to Evan's criticism, making it the most appropriate choice.

(B) This answer choice describes a situation where some vehicle owners may not be aware of a recall. While it involves uncertainty, it doesn't directly align with the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt to prevent harm or wrongdoing.

(C) This answer choice discusses the opposition to using incentives to attract businesses, highlighting the potential negative consequences on the region's economy. However, it doesn't directly relate to the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt.

(D) This answer choice discusses updating a computer security system to attract new customers. While it mentions potential benefits, it doesn't directly address the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt.

(E) This answer choice discusses Isabel Allende's personal experiences and the positive tone of her novels, suggesting that her own view of life has not been negatively marked by her past. Although it involves uncertainty about the impact of her experiences, it doesn't directly align with the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt to prevent harm or wrongdoing.

In summary, option (A) is the answer choice that most closely conforms to the principle illustrated by Evan's criticism of vegetarians who eat seafood.

The given pattern of reasoning states that the dean's decision to prevent the president of the Imperialist Society from speaking on campus has threatened everyone's right to free expression. To understand the parallel reasoning, let's analyze each answer choice:

(A) This option discusses Dr. Pacheco's surgery and questions whether it can be considered heroic since surgery rarely involves any risk to the surgeon. This reasoning does not parallel the original argument, as it focuses on evaluating the heroism of an action based on the level of risk involved.

(B) This option states that a society rewarding heroism encourages altruism over pure self-interest. This does not align with the original argument, which is focused on the denial of unrestricted freedom of speech and its impact on everyone's right to free expression.

(C) This option discusses Isabel's act of heroism in rescuing a drowning child and claims that such acts enrich the lives of all. The reasoning here is similar to the original argument, as it emphasizes the impact of an individual's heroic action on the lives of others.

(D) This option discusses the expectations placed on firefighters to perform heroically under harsh conditions. However, it concludes that firefighters are often expected to perform actions they are not required to perform. This reasoning does not parallel the original argument, which focuses on the threat to free expression.

(E) This option suggests that acts of extreme generosity are usually heroic because they are above and beyond the call of duty. This reasoning is not directly related to the original argument, as it does not address the denial of free expression or its impact on everyone's rights.

Among the given answer choices, option (C) best parallels the original argument. Both the original argument and option (C) discuss an individual's heroic action and the impact it has on others. In the original argument, the dean's decision to prevent the president from speaking on campus is seen as a threat to everyone's right to free expression. Similarly, in option (C), Isabel's action of rescuing a drowning child is seen as enriching the lives of all.

Therefore, the correct answer is (C).

Let's break down the options and analyze which one aligns best with the analogy:

(A) This option suggests that poetry cannot be effectively translated because it is composed of words with specific meanings. However, the analogy doesn't directly support this statement. It focuses on the idea that word-for-word equivalents don't exist across languages, but it doesn't imply that poetry cannot be effectively translated.

(B) This option suggests that some languages are inherently more musical and more suitable for poetic composition than others. While this may be a valid point, the analogy doesn't address this aspect. It focuses on the act of translation rather than comparing the inherent musicality of different languages.

(C) This option suggests that the translator should primarily focus on reproducing the rhythms and sound patterns of the original, rather than transcribing its meaning exactly. This aligns well with the analogy, which emphasizes the need for the violinist (translator) to be guided by the nature and possibilities of the violin (language being translated into) as well as the original composition. The emphasis on reproducing the musicality of the original aligns with this option.

(D) This option suggests that the translator must observe the spirit of the original and also the qualities of expression that characterize the language into which the original is translated. This aligns closely with the analogy, as it emphasizes the need for the translator to consider both the original composition and the nature of the language being translated into. The analogy emphasizes the importance of being guided by the original composition and the possibilities of the instrument (language).

(E) This option suggests that poetry is easier to translate if it focuses on philosophical insights or natural descriptions rather than subjective impressions. The analogy does not specifically address the content or subject matter of the poetry being translated, so this option is not directly supported by the analogy.

Based on the above analysis, option (D) is the most suitable answer. It captures the essence of the analogy by emphasizing the need for the translator to consider both the spirit of the original composition and the qualities of expression in the language being translated into.

Premise: Joan would not allow police investigators to search her home without a warrant.
Conclusion: Allowing the police to search her home without a warrant shows that Joan does not grow marijuana plants in her home.

To find the argument logically most similar to this, we need to identify an answer choice that follows the same structure, where the premise establishes a condition or expectation, and the conclusion states that a particular action or observation confirms or denies that condition or expectation.

Let's analyze each answer choice:

(A) If Justin were playing golf at the city golf course, he would not be home until dinner. Therefore, the fact that he gets home by midafternoon shows that he is not playing golf at the city course.

This argument has the same structure as the one in the passage. The premise establishes a condition (Justin playing golf at the city golf course) and states an expected outcome (not being home until dinner). The conclusion draws from an observed action (getting home by midafternoon) to negate the condition or expectation (Justin not playing golf at the city course). Therefore, (A) is the correct answer.

(B) If Paul were stingy, he would not buy Dorian a birthday present. Therefore, Paul’s buying Francis a birthday present shows that he is stingy.

This argument follows a different structure. The premise establishes a condition (Paul being stingy) and states an expected action (not buying Dorian a birthday present). The conclusion, however, does not negate the condition but rather affirms it based on a different action (buying Francis a birthday present). Therefore, (B) is not the correct answer.

(C) If Jason were over 30, he would not want to listen to rap music. Therefore, the fact that Jason does not like to listen to rap music shows that he is over 30.

This argument also has a different structure. The premise establishes a condition (Jason being over 30) and states an expected preference (not wanting to listen to rap music). The conclusion affirms the condition based on a different preference (not liking to listen to rap music). Therefore, (C) is not the correct answer.

(D) If Sandra were a good seamstress, she would not buy cheap fabric. Therefore, the fact that Sandra is not a good seamstress shows that she bought cheap fabric.

This argument follows a similar structure to the passage. The premise establishes a condition (Sandra being a good seamstress) and states an expected action (not buying cheap fabric). The conclusion draws from an observed action (Sandra buying cheap fabric) to negate the condition (Sandra not being a good seamstress). However, the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is different in terms of positive and negative statements. Therefore, (D) is not the correct answer.

(E) If Kevin were hungry, he would not skip breakfast. Therefore, the fact that Kevin is hungry shows that he did not skip breakfast.

This argument follows a different structure. The premise establishes a condition (Kevin being hungry) and states an expected action (not skipping breakfast). The conclusion affirms the condition based on an observed state (Kevin being hungry). Therefore, (E) is not the correct answer.

In summary, the argument in the passage is most similar in structure to answer choice (A).

Let's analyze each option and see which one matches the flawed reasoning:

(A) This option presents a flawed reasoning known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" or "after this, therefore because of this." The person assumes that because they experienced a headache after eating Chinese food and drinking wine together, the combination of the two must be the cause of their headaches. This is a flawed reasoning because there could be other factors contributing to the headaches, and correlation does not imply causation. However, this reasoning does not match the flawed reasoning found in the passage.

(B) This option presents a similar flawed reasoning. The person assumes that because something bad happened twice when they went to a restaurant, something bad will always happen if they go there again. This is an example of faulty generalization based on limited evidence. However, this reasoning does not match the flawed reasoning found in the passage.

(C) This option presents a different line of reasoning that does not match the flawed reasoning found in the passage. It discusses personal preferences and values, comparing the satisfaction derived from helping others with material achievements.

(D) This option matches the flawed reasoning found in the passage. The person assumes that because they constantly play volleyball, they must be obsessed with it. This is an example of circular reasoning because the conclusion ("I must be obsessed with it") is essentially the same as the premise ("I'm always playing it"). The reasoning does not provide any additional evidence or logical support for the conclusion.

(E) This option presents a different line of reasoning that does not match the flawed reasoning found in the passage. It discusses changing academic majors based on personal interest, using an analogy with a bee sampling nectar from different flowers.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D) because it exhibits the same flawed reasoning as found in the passage.

Let's analyze each option to determine the flawed reasoning parallel to the argument provided:

(A) This argument states that government legislation mandating the reduction of automobile emissions has been successful because the air in the 20 largest cities now contains smaller amounts of major pollutants mentioned in the legislation. The flawed reasoning here is that the argument assumes a causal relationship between the legislation and the reduction in pollutants without considering other factors that may have contributed to the decline, such as advancements in technology or changes in consumer behavior.

(B) This argument suggests that mechanical translation from one language into another is an idea whose time has come because experts have been working on the problem for 40 years, implying that accumulated expertise will eventually achieve a breakthrough. The flawed reasoning here is that the argument assumes that the mere passage of time and accumulation of expertise will lead to a breakthrough without considering the complexity and challenges involved in achieving mechanical translation on a general scale.

(C) This argument claims that sales of computers for home use will never reach the levels projected by manufacturers because tasks envisioned for home use, such as menu planning and checkbook reconciliation, can be performed in simpler ways than using a computer. The flawed reasoning here is that the argument assumes that the tasks mentioned are the only purposes for home computer use and ignores the wide range of other functions and applications that computers provide, such as communication, entertainment, and education.

(D) This argument states that consumers have tired of microwave ovens as quickly as they initially accepted them because sales of microwave ovens flattened last year, indicating relatively little use for these devices. The flawed reasoning here is that the argument assumes a decline in sales automatically translates to consumers finding little use for the product, without considering other factors that may have influenced the sales decline, such as market saturation or changes in consumer preferences.

(E) This argument asserts that creating incentives for a particular kind of investment inevitably leads to boom-and-bust cycles, citing the recent decline in the value of commercial real estate as evidence. The flawed reasoning here is that the argument assumes a direct causal relationship between government incentives and the decline in real estate value, without considering other factors that may have contributed, such as economic downturns or market fluctuations.

After analyzing each option, we can see that the flawed reasoning parallel to the initial argument can be found in option (D). Therefore, the correct answer is (D).

Let's examine the given argument and the answer choices to understand why option (E) is the best match.

The given argument is about the payment of migrant workers and proposes that they should be paid the same minimum wage as other full-time workers. The argument is based on the premise that migrant workers work long hours and are essentially full-time workers despite being hired seasonally. The conclusion is that the law should require equal pay for migrant workers.

Option (A) is about the regulation of day-care facilities and argues that they should be federally regulated instead of locally regulated because differences in care between cities are unfair. This argument is not directly related to the issue of payment and does not have the same logical structure as the given argument. Therefore, option (A) is incorrect.

Option (B) discusses the issue of housing estates being built in rural areas without adequate drinking water due to fewer restrictions on development. The argument proposes that rural areas should adopt building codes similar to those in large cities. While it addresses an issue of fairness, it does not follow the same reasoning pattern as the given argument. Thus, option (B) is incorrect.

Option (C) is about the regulation of gun sales in different countries and argues that all countries should cooperate in developing a uniform international policy regarding gun sales. This argument is not directly related to the payment of workers and does not follow the same logical structure as the given argument. Therefore, option (C) is incorrect.

Option (D) discusses the formulation of liquor laws and suggests that club and restaurant owners, rather than politicians, should create those laws because they are directly affected by them. This argument is about who should formulate laws and does not parallel the reasoning structure of the given argument. Thus, option (D) is incorrect.

Option (E) addresses the issue of food additives and argues that they should be subject to safety regulations as stringent as those covering drugs because they can be as dangerous as drugs. This argument shares a similar logical structure with the given argument. It highlights an inequality in the current regulations and proposes that stricter regulations should be applied to ensure safety. Therefore, option (E) is the best match and the correct answer.

In summary, the given argument about the payment of migrant workers is most closely paralleled by option (E), which discusses the regulation of food additives and the need for safety regulations as stringent as those for drugs.