byRituparna Nath Content Writer at Study Abroad Exams
Question: Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.
Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.
Which of the following best describes the error of reasoning contained in Siegfried's argument above?
- It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
- It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
- It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
- It is based on unproven speculation about future events.
- It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
“Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.”- this is a GMAT Critical question. This particular GMAT Critical Reasoning topic has been taken from the book ‘Manhattan Prep GMAT Critical Reasoning’. In this particular topic, candidates need to choose the option that best suits the passage. GMAT critical reasoning tests the logical and analytical skills of the candidates. Critical reasoning in GMAT requires candidates to find the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, or find the logical flaw in the argument. The GMAT CR section contains 10 -13 GMAT critical reasoning questions out of 36 GMAT verbal questions.
Answer: A
Explanation: This GMAT critical reasoning uses one of the most common fallacies "Appeal to authority"
The form of fallacy is:
A is an authority/expert on subject X
A makes claim Y about subject X
Therefore, Y is true.
Now, we will see how this applies to our problem statement:
Let us paraphrase a bit to make the question follow the fallacy above:
Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.
Siegfried: [From his experiences] My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.
This means Siegfried says that Brunhilda’s point is simply untrue.
In the question:
Siegfried assumes his own experience is comprehensive enough ==> He is an expert /authority of this matter from the experience ==> His conclusion must be true.
This is a very common error that we make when we hear someone says:
The scientists say that..…
I have a book that says...…
I saw it on TV/ newspaper......…
From my own experience, I think....…
Immediately, we should think about the fallacy "appeal to authority". We should ask the questions like:
Do scientists have expertise on this matter ?
Is book believable ?
Is the TV channel/ newspaper biased or not?
Your own experience comprehensive enough?
etc.......
Now, we will focus on analyzing each answer.
- It relies upon an unreasonable appeal to authority.
- This is Correct. As stated above, this relies on an unreasonable appeal. His appeal is based on his own experience and the family background. Brunhilda’s words are based on a global perspective. - It assumes the truth of what it sets out to prove.
- The truth of what Siegfried said is actually true only from his family experience. This does not prove that he will be correct on a global stage. So it is not correct. - It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
- The language used in C may make us think C is correct, but it's not. Actually, Siegfried opposed what Brunhilda mentioned because he said "this is simply untrue". However, C is actually not correct. - It is based an unproven speculation about future events.
- This is simply wrong. Siegfried’s argument is not based on future events, actually he mentioned something in the past. He states about his father and grandfather. Hence, this is also incorrect. - It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.
- This can also be judged as incorrect. Siegfried did not oppose to any causal relationship here. This can also be stated as out of context.
Hence, A is the correct answer.
Suggested GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions
- Engineers are Investigating the Suitability of Wantastiquet Pass as the Site of a New Bridge
- Josh has Twenty Years of Typing Experience Behind Him
- In their Search for Mayan Ruins in the Jungles of Guatemala Archaeologist
- Art Historian Recently Computer Analysis has Revealed that a Few of a Famous Flemish Artists
- In Three Separate Studies Researchers Compared Children who had Slept with Nightlights
- Until Recently it was Thought that Ink used Before the Sixteenth Century did not Contain
- Polling Data Reveal that an Overwhelming Majority of 9 year Olds can Correctly Identify
- It is Illogical to Infer a Second and Different Effect from a Cause which is known only
- Experienced Pilots often Have More Trouble than Novice Pilots in Learning to Fly
- A library Currently has only Coin-Operated Photocopy Machines, which Cost 10 cents Per Copy.
- The Cotton Farms of Country Q Became so Productive that the Market Could not Absorb all that they Produced.
- Shelby Industries Manufactures and Sells the Same Gauges as Jones Industries.
- Unlike a Typical Automobile Loan, Which Requires a Fifteen- to Twenty-Percent Down Payment
- The Interview is an Essential Part of a Successful hiring Program
- James Weighs More Than Kelly. Luis Weighs More Than Mark
- Monthly Employee Evaluations are an Excellent Tool for Managers.
- In a Monogamous Culture, 100% of the Adults are Married.
- Without Information that could Only have Come from Someone Present at the Secret Meeting between the Finance Minister and the Leader of the Opposition Party
- Dear Applicant: Thank you for Your Application
- Discussion of Greenhouse Effects Have Usually Had as a Focus the Possibility of Earth Growing Warmer
Comments