Free Practice Question
CR · Critical Reasoning
605-655
Resolve a Paradox
The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."
This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowA
It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
Correct
C
It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D
It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E
It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.
See the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Explanation
Preview
Official Explanation
Official
We’re dealing with a Critical Reasoning Flaw question. The question stem is:
“This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?”
This is classic GMAT phrasing for a flaw in the reasoning question. So we need to identify what's wrong with the logic in the argument.
🔍 Argument Breakdown:
The accused lobbyist says:
I left the house with no money → I couldn’t have offered a bribe.
I spent all my cash on lunch right before meeting the senator → Again, I had nothing to offer.
🧠 That’s circular or even contradictory — wait, if you left the house with no money, how did you pay for lunch? If you did have money for lunch, then you must have left the house with cash.
🚨 Logical Flaw:
He gives two reasons, but they can’t both be true.
If he had no money when he left the house, then how did he buy lunch?
If he had cash for lunch, then his claim that he had no money when he left the house falls apart.
✅ Correct Answer:
(b) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
✔ This directly targets the contradiction. He gives two supporting claims for his innocence, but those claims contradict each other.…
“This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?”
This is classic GMAT phrasing for a flaw in the reasoning question. So we need to identify what's wrong with the logic in the argument.
🔍 Argument Breakdown:
The accused lobbyist says:
I left the house with no money → I couldn’t have offered a bribe.
I spent all my cash on lunch right before meeting the senator → Again, I had nothing to offer.
🧠 That’s circular or even contradictory — wait, if you left the house with no money, how did you pay for lunch? If you did have money for lunch, then you must have left the house with cash.
🚨 Logical Flaw:
He gives two reasons, but they can’t both be true.
If he had no money when he left the house, then how did he buy lunch?
If he had cash for lunch, then his claim that he had no money when he left the house falls apart.
✅ Correct Answer:
(b) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
✔ This directly targets the contradiction. He gives two supporting claims for his innocence, but those claims contradict each other.…
Read the full explanation
Sign in for free to see the complete step-by-step solution to this question.
Comments
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts and help others understand it better.
Sign in to commentWhat this question tests
What it tests
Whether you can explain an apparent contradiction in a way that makes both facts true.
Common trap
Picking an option that explains one side of the paradox while making the other side false.
Details
Difficulty
605-655
Type
CR