Test: Similar Reasoning - GMAT MCQ

(A) A school that chooses textbooks based on student preference may not get the most economical package.
This option suggests that choosing textbooks based on student preference may not be the most economical choice for the school. However, it does not directly relate to the principle of the cost of an action outweighing its benefits.

(B) An energy-efficient insulation system may cost more up front but will ultimately save money over the life of the house.
This option presents a scenario where an upfront investment in an energy-efficient insulation system may initially cost more but ultimately save money over time. While it involves cost and benefits, it does not align closely with the principle illustrated in the scenario.

(C) The time that it takes to have a pizza delivered may be longer than it takes to cook a complete dinner.
This option compares the time it takes to have a pizza delivered to the time it takes to cook a complete dinner. Although it involves time considerations, it does not directly relate to the principle discussed in the scenario.

(D) A complicated hotel security system may cost more in customer goodwill than it saves in losses by theft.
This option closely aligns with the principle illustrated in the scenario. It suggests that the cost of implementing a complicated hotel security system may exceed the benefits it provides in terms of losses by theft. In this case, the potential loss of customer goodwill outweighs the monetary savings.

(E) An electronic keyboard may be cheaper to buy than a piano but more expensive to repair.
This option presents a scenario where an electronic keyboard may have a lower upfront cost compared to a piano, but it may incur higher expenses for repairs. Although it involves cost considerations, it does not directly relate to the principle discussed in the scenario.

Among the given options, option (D) most closely conforms to the principle illustrated in the scenario, as it emphasizes that the cost in terms of customer goodwill may outweigh the benefits of implementing a complicated hotel security system.

(A) Argues from the specific to the general.
This option refers to an argument that moves from specific examples or instances to make a general claim. In the given argument, there is no clear indication that the author is using specific examples to make a general claim, so this option does not accurately describe the author's approach.

(B) Attacks the motives of her opponents.
This option suggests that the author attacks the motives of those who oppose drug legalization. However, there is no indication in the argument that the author engages in attacking or questioning the motives of any opponents. Therefore, this option does not apply.

(C) Uses the positions of noted social commentators to support her position.
This option accurately describes the approach taken by the author. The author appeals to the positions of respected individuals, William F. Buckley and federal judge Edmund J. Reinholt, to support the argument for drug legalization. By referencing these figures, the author attempts to lend credibility and authority to their own position.

(D) Argues in a circular manner.
Circular reasoning occurs when the argument restates the claim as evidence or assumes the conclusion in the premise. In the given argument, there is no evidence of circular reasoning. The author presents the positions of respected individuals as support for their claim, rather than merely restating the claim itself.

(E) Claims that her position is correct because others cannot disprove it.
This option refers to the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, where one asserts that their position is correct because it has not been disproven. In the given argument, the author does not explicitly claim that their position is correct based on the inability of others to disprove it. Instead, they use the positions of respected individuals as evidence to support their position.

To summarize, option (C) accurately describes the approach used by the author in the given argument, as they rely on the positions of noted social commentators to bolster their position in favor of drug legalization.

(A) Many mountain climbers claim that their sport is safe because mishaps, though often fatal, are rare. However, mountain climbing is very risky: although the number of mishaps is small, so is the number of mountain climbers. Hence, the chance of a fatal mishap during mountain climbing is not as slim as it may seem.
This option presents an argument that challenges the perception of mountain climbing as safe based on the rarity of mishaps. It points out that the risk of a fatal mishap during mountain climbing is not as slim as it may appear due to the small number of mountain climbers involved. The flawed pattern of reasoning lies in not sufficiently addressing the specific risks and precautions associated with mountain climbing.

(B) Eating a serving of vegetables just once will not improve your health. It is nonetheless prudent to do so, for eating vegetables every day will make you much healthier over time.
This option presents an argument that acknowledges that a single serving of vegetables may not have a significant immediate impact on one's health. However, it asserts that regularly consuming vegetables over time will lead to improved health. The reasoning here is not flawed and follows a logical pattern of gradually accumulating health benefits through repeated actions.

(C) Skydivers always use two parachutes: a main chute and an auxiliary one in case the main chute malfunctions. Thus, the risk of a fatal mishap is low. Nonetheless, it is foolish to skydive, for though the risk is small, the rewards from skydiving are also small.
This option presents an argument that acknowledges the low risk of a fatal mishap in skydiving due to the use of two parachutes. However, it claims that despite the low risk, skydiving is foolish because the rewards are perceived as small. The flawed pattern of reasoning lies in basing the conclusion on subjective judgments of the rewards, rather than objectively assessing the overall risk-benefit analysis of skydiving.

(D) The risk of serious injury when bungee jumping is quite low. Nonetheless, it is reckless to engage in that activity, for the injuries that would result in the case of an accident are so extreme that it is not worth the risk.
This option closely resembles the pattern of reasoning in the original argument. It acknowledges the low risk of serious injury in bungee jumping but asserts that the extreme injuries that would result from an accident outweigh the benefit or enjoyment of the activity. The reasoning flaw lies in placing significant emphasis on the potential severe consequences without adequately considering the overall risk-benefit analysis or other mitigating factors.

(E) People complain about having to wear seat belts because they believe the chances of traffic accidents are slim. This is true; on any given trip, it is unlikely that a collision will occur. However, it is still unwise to ride in a car without a seat belt, for the effort it takes to put one on is minimal.
This option presents an argument that addresses the reluctance to wear seat belts based on the belief that the chances of traffic accidents are slim. It acknowledges the low likelihood of a collision on any given trip. However, it contends that it is still unwise to ride without a seat belt because the effort required to put one on is minimal. The flawed pattern of reasoning lies in relying on the minimal effort required rather than focusing on the potential life-saving benefits and legal requirements of wearing seat belts.

To summarize, option (D) most closely resembles the flawed pattern of reasoning in the original argument, as both emphasize the severe consequences of an event and use that as the primary basis for deeming an activity unwise or reckless, without thoroughly considering other factors.

(A) Unless people’s well-being is threatened, there should be no higher priority than preserving endangered plant and animal populations.
This option suggests that preserving endangered plant and animal populations should be a top priority unless people's well-being is at stake. While Lola's argument does prioritize the preservation of the yew trees and the spotted owl, it does not explicitly mention the well-being of people. Therefore, Lola's position does not conform closely to this principle.

(B) Medical researchers should work with environmentalists to come to an agreement about the fate of the Pacific yew and the spotted owl.
This option suggests that medical researchers and environmentalists should collaborate and reach an agreement regarding the Pacific yew and the spotted owl. While collaboration and discussion between these groups could be beneficial, Lola's argument does not specifically address this aspect. Therefore, Lola's position does not closely conform to this principle.

(C) Environmental concerns should play a role in decisions concerning medical research only if human lives are not at stake.
This option suggests that environmental concerns should be considered in medical research decisions only if human lives are not endangered. Lola's argument, on the other hand, emphasizes the potential consequences for the ecosystem as a whole, including the yew trees and the spotted owl. Therefore, Lola's position does not align closely with this principle.

(D) Only medical breakthroughs that could save human lives would justify threatening the environment.
This option suggests that threatening the environment would only be justified if there is a medical breakthrough that can save human lives. Lola's argument, however, does not explicitly focus on the aspect of saving human lives. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of preserving the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore, Lola's position does not closely conform to this principle.

(E) Avoiding actions that threaten an entire ecosystem takes precedence over immediately providing advantage to a restricted group of people.
This option suggests that protecting an entire ecosystem should be prioritized over immediately benefiting a limited group of people. Lola's argument aligns closely with this principle as she argues for waiting for a synthetic drug rather than endangering the yew trees and the spotted owl, considering the potential consequences for the entire ecosystem. Therefore, Lola's position most closely conforms to this principle.

(A) Subscribers to newsmagazines are concerned that increased postage costs will be passed on to them in the form of higher subscription rates. But that is a price they have to pay for having the magazines delivered. No group of users of the postal system should be subsidized at the expense of others.
This option presents the argument that subscribers to newsmagazines should accept the increased postage costs as part of the price they have to pay for the delivery service. It suggests that no group of postal system users should be subsidized at the expense of others. This reasoning focuses on the acceptance of the cost without directly addressing the concern raised. It is different from the argument in question.

(B) Most of the salespeople are concerned with complaints about the sales manager’s aggressive behavior. They need to consider that sales are currently increasing. Due to this success, no action should be taken to address the manager’s behavior.
This option suggests that because sales are currently increasing, no action should be taken to address the complaints about the sales manager's aggressive behavior. The reasoning here focuses on the positive outcome of increasing sales while disregarding the concerns about the manager's behavior. This aligns closely with the questionable pattern of reasoning in the original argument.

(C) Parents are concerned about their children spending too much time watching television. Those parents should consider television time as time they could spend with their children. Let the children watch television, but watch it with them.
This option suggests that parents who are concerned about their children spending too much time watching television should consider it as an opportunity to spend time with their children by watching television together. The reasoning here proposes a solution that involves participating in the activity rather than directly addressing the concerns about excessive television time. It is different from the argument in question.

(D) Nutritionists warn people not to eat unhealthy foods. Those foods have been in people’s diets for years. Before cutting all those foods out of diets it would be wise to remember that people enjoy culinary variety.
This option suggests that before eliminating unhealthy foods from diets, it is important to remember that people enjoy culinary variety and that these foods have been a part of diets for years. The reasoning here emphasizes the enjoyment and variety of food without directly addressing the concerns about unhealthy eating habits. It is different from the argument in question.

(E) Some consumers become concerned when the price of a product increases for several years in a row, thinking that the price will continue to increase. But these consumers are mistaken since a long-term trend of price increases indicates that the price will probably decline in the future.
This option suggests that consumers who are concerned about consecutive price increases are mistaken because a long-term trend of price increases indicates that the price will likely decline in the future. The reasoning here focuses on the long-term trend without directly addressing the concerns about the continuous price increases. It is different from the argument in question.

Therefore, option (B) is the one that most closely parallels the questionable pattern of reasoning in the original argument.

(A) disease-causing bacteria in eggs can be destroyed by overcooking the eggs, but the eggs then become much less appetizing; health is more important than taste, however, so it is better to overcook eggs than not to do so.
This option presents the argument that although overcooking eggs may make them less appetizing, it is still better to do so in order to ensure the destruction of disease-causing bacteria and prioritize health over taste. The reasoning here involves weighing the negative consequence of reduced taste against the positive outcome of improved health. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(B) Increasing the price of transatlantic telephone calls will discourage many private individuals from making them. But since most transatlantic telephone calls are made by businesses, not by private individuals, a rate increase will not reduce telephone company profits.
This option suggests that increasing the price of transatlantic telephone calls may discourage private individuals from making them, but since businesses make the majority of these calls, the telephone company profits will not be significantly affected. The reasoning here involves considering the potential decrease in demand from private individuals and its impact on profits. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(C) A new highway will allow suburban commuters to reach the city more quickly, but not without causing increased delays within the city that will more than offset any time saved on the highway. Therefore, the highway will not reduce suburban commuters’ overall commuting time.
This option suggests that although a new highway may allow suburban commuters to reach the city more quickly, it would also result in increased delays within the city that would negate any time saved on the highway. The reasoning here involves weighing the time saved on the highway against the increased delays in the city to conclude that overall commuting time would not be reduced. This closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(D) Doctors can prescribe antibiotics for many minor illnesses, but antibiotics are expensive, and these illnesses can often be cured by rest alone. Therefore, it is better to rest at home than to see a doctor for these illnesses.
This option suggests that although doctors can prescribe antibiotics for minor illnesses, they are expensive, and these illnesses can often be cured by rest alone. Therefore, it is better to rest at home rather than seeking medical treatment. The reasoning here involves considering the cost of antibiotics and the potential for self-healing through rest as an alternative. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(E) A certain chemical will kill garden pests that damage tomatoes, but that chemical will damage certain other plants more severely than the pests damage the tomatoes. Therefore, the only garden that will benefit from the use of the chemical are those in which only tomatoes are grown.
This option suggests that while a certain chemical can effectively kill garden pests that damage tomatoes, it would also harm other plants more severely than the pests harm the tomatoes. Therefore, the only gardens that would benefit from using the chemical are those where only tomatoes are grown. The reasoning here involves weighing the potential benefits to the tomatoes against the negative consequences for other plants. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

Therefore, option (C) is the one that most closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(A) Rocky wants to go with three friends to the amusement park. His father owns both a sedan and a compact. The compact holds four people, but even though the sedan’s engine has more horsepower, if Rocky borrows a car from his father, he will borrow the compact.
This option presents the argument that even though the sedan has more horsepower, Rocky will choose to borrow the compact because it can hold all four people. The reasoning here involves considering the seating capacity as the determining factor in the car choice, disregarding the horsepower advantage. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(B) The Roddick Corporation offers Pedzisai a choice between an assignment in Sweden and an assignment in South Africa. Pedzisai would never accept an assignment in his home country of South Africa if it meant turning down an assignment in Europe, so if he chooses an assignment, it must be the assignment in Sweden.
This option suggests that since Pedzisai would never accept an assignment in his home country of South Africa if it meant rejecting an assignment in Europe, if he chooses an assignment, it must be the one in Sweden. The reasoning here involves eliminating one option (South Africa) based on the preference for assignments in Europe. This closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(C) If Georgia wants to ride her bike from her apartment to work, she must either take a thoroughfare or go through a maze of neighborhoods. The neighborhood streets are always full of potholes, and the thoroughfare has too much traffic, so she never rides her bike to work.
This option suggests that because the neighborhood streets are full of potholes and the thoroughfare has too much traffic, Georgia never rides her bike to work. The reasoning here involves eliminating both options (neighborhood streets and thoroughfare) based on the negative aspects associated with each route. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(D) Antonio can take a 15-minute break in the morning or an hour and a quarter for lunch later. The haircut Antonio planned takes 30 minutes, but his barber had only morning appointments available, so no matter what, Antonio will have to get his haircut another day.
This option suggests that because Antonio's planned haircut takes 30 minutes, but his barber only has morning appointments available, he will have to get his haircut another day. The reasoning here involves eliminating the possibility of getting the haircut on the same day based on the availability of appointments. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(E) If the team owner does not fire his coach, his football team will rebel, and they will lose more games. Losing the coach will also mean losing more games, so if no alternative solution presents itself, the team will lose more games.
This option suggests that if the team owner does not fire the coach, the team will rebel and lose more games. However, if the coach is fired, the team will also lose more games. The reasoning here involves considering the negative outcome of both scenarios, leading to the conclusion that the team will lose more games regardless of the decision. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

Therefore, option (B) is the one that most closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(A) Most new restaurants are either good publicity or a good location in order to succeed. But most restaurants with a good location also receive good publicity. Hence, a restaurant that has a good location is guaranteed to succeed.
This option suggests that most new restaurants need either good publicity or a good location to succeed. Furthermore, since most restaurants with a good location also receive good publicity, it is concluded that a restaurant with a good location is guaranteed to succeed. The reasoning here involves drawing a conclusion based on the relationship between good location, good publicity, and restaurant success. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(B) Every best-selling cookbook published last year is both well written and contains beautiful photographs. The cookbook Cynthia Cleveland published last year is well written and contains beautiful photographs. Therefore, Cleveland's cookbook is a best seller.
This option suggests that every best-selling cookbook published last year is both well written and contains beautiful photographs. Additionally, it is stated that Cynthia Cleveland's cookbook is well written and contains beautiful photographs. Therefore, it is concluded that Cleveland's cookbook is a best seller. The reasoning here involves applying a general condition for a best-selling cookbook to a specific cookbook, leading to the conclusion that it is a best seller. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(C) All students at the Freeman School of Cooking study either desserts or soups in their second year. This year, all Freeman students studying soups are also studying desserts. Therefore, every second-year student at Freeman is studying desserts this year.
This option suggests that all students at the Freeman School of Cooking study either desserts or soups in their second year. It is further stated that this year, all Freeman students studying soups are also studying desserts. Therefore, it is concluded that every second-year student at Freeman is studying desserts this year. The reasoning here involves applying the condition for studying soups and desserts to all second-year students, leading to the conclusion about their course of study. This closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(D) Chefs who become celebrities either open their own restaurants or write books about their craft, but not both. John Endicott is a celebrated chef who opened his own restaurant. Therefore, Endicott does not write books about his craft.
This option suggests that chefs who become celebrities either open their own restaurants or write books about their craft, but they do not do both. It is then stated that John Endicott is a celebrated chef who opened his own restaurant. Therefore, it is concluded that Endicott does not write books about his craft. The reasoning here involves excluding one option (writing books) based on the presence of the other option (opening a restaurant), leading to the conclusion. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(E) Every catering service in Woodside Township will accept both residential and business catering assignments. Peggy's Fine Foods is a catering service that will not accept business catering assignments. Hence, Peggy's Fine Foods is not in Woodside Township.
This option suggests that every catering service in Woodside Township will accept both residential and business catering assignments. It is then stated that Peggy's Fine Foods is a catering service that will not accept business catering assignments. Therefore, it is concluded that Peggy's Fine Foods is not in Woodside Township. The reasoning here involves excluding the possibility of being in Woodside Township based on the specific condition of not accepting business catering assignments. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

Therefore, option (C) is the one that most closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(A) If you take up a bad habit such as gambling, it is foolish to argue that such a habit is harmful. If you truly believe that gambling is harmful, you will not gamble.
This option presents a reasoning pattern that involves arguing against the logical consistency of taking up a bad habit. It states that if someone takes up a bad habit like gambling, it is foolish to argue that such a habit is harmful. It further states that if someone truly believes that gambling is harmful, they will not gamble. The reasoning here involves questioning the coherence of holding a belief about the harmfulness of a habit while still engaging in that habit. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(B) If you choose your college wisely, you are likely to have a pleasant experience. Suzanne, sadly, chose her college based on nothing more than a hunch. As you might expect, her experience was less than optimal.
This option presents a reasoning pattern that involves the relationship between making a wise college choice and having a pleasant experience. It states that if someone chooses their college wisely, they are likely to have a pleasant experience. It then provides the example of Suzanne, who chose her college based on nothing more than a hunch, and her experience was less than optimal. The reasoning here involves illustrating the consequences of not making a wise college choice based on the example of Suzanne. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(C) It is hardly worth the effort to get upset because bad weather prevents you from participating in a favorite event. The odds of bad weather in this region are about one in four, so you must plan as though any event might be cancelled or moved indoors.
This option presents a reasoning pattern that involves dealing with the potential disappointment caused by bad weather and its impact on participating in a favorite event. It states that it is hardly worth the effort to get upset in such a situation and suggests planning as though any event might be cancelled or moved indoors due to the odds of bad weather being about one in four in that region. The reasoning here involves managing expectations and taking a practical approach based on the likelihood of bad weather. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

(D) Should it start to rain, Doward will turn off the sprinkler system. Once he turns off the system, it will not automatically reset for 24 hours. In other words, if it rains this morning, the sprinkler system won't reset before tomorrow morning.
This option presents a reasoning pattern that involves the actions and consequences related to the occurrence of rain and the sprinkler system. It states that if it starts to rain, Doward will turn off the sprinkler system. It further states that once the system is turned off, it will not automatically reset for 24 hours. Therefore, if it rains in the morning, the conclusion is drawn that the sprinkler system won't reset before tomorrow morning. The reasoning here involves conditional statements, actions, and the resulting consequences. This closely parallels the reasoning in the original argument.

(E) Once Jon joins the union, he will not be allowed to train anyone who might potentially replace him. Right now, Jon is not a member of the union, so he is not covered by that protection.
This option presents a reasoning pattern that involves the restrictions placed on someone once they join a union. It states that once Jon joins the union, he will not be allowed to train anyone who might potentially replace him. It is further stated that Jon is not currently a member of the union, so he is not covered by that protection. The reasoning here involves the conditions and limitations imposed by union membership. It is different from the reasoning in the original argument.

Therefore, option (D) is the one that most closely parallels the reasoning pattern in the original argument.

(A) Mussolini was an evil man; therefore, he became a fascist: This argument is flawed because it presents a causal relationship between being evil and becoming a fascist without considering other factors that might have influenced Mussolini's political ideology. It oversimplifies a complex historical situation.

(B) Eating bacon is harmful to health; therefore, fatty foods are unsafe: This argument makes a generalization based on a specific example. While it is true that bacon is high in fat and has potential health risks, it does not mean that all fatty foods are inherently unsafe. It overlooks the fact that not all fats are created equal, and some types of fat can be part of a balanced and healthy diet.

(C) Some judges are dishonest because they take bribes: This argument presents a causal relationship between judges being dishonest and taking bribes. While there may be some dishonest judges who engage in corrupt practices, it does not mean that all judges are dishonest or that dishonesty is solely caused by taking bribes. It oversimplifies the factors that contribute to judicial misconduct.

(D) Whales are in danger of becoming extinct; therefore, we should not trade with countries that allow whales to be hunted: This argument suggests a direct solution to the problem of whale extinction by advocating for a trade boycott. While protecting whales is important, the argument oversimplifies the complex issue of conservation and does not consider other potential strategies or the broader context of international relations and conservation efforts.

(E) Birds are dangerous because they all spread disease: This argument makes a sweeping generalization about all birds based on the premise that they spread disease. It overlooks the fact that not all bird species spread disease and fails to consider the wide variety of birds and their respective behaviors. It is an overgeneralization that ignores the nuances of bird biology and behavior.