Note
LSAT questions are good practice material to build the skills needed for GMAT (both CR and RC). There are some small differences here and there, but the questions are useful to practice and can help build the right skills.
Question
Rifka: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.
Craig: The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
In the exchange above, the function of Craig’s comment is to
Given this is an official question, because of copyright, the complete question cannot be shown here. The question can be accessed at GMATClub by searching using the question text online.
Solution
This question has an accuracy of only 36% on GMATClub. Let’s remove the mystery around this question.
Rifka’s argument:
Conclusion -> We do not need to stop and ask for directions.
Reasoning -> We would not need to stop and ask for directions unless we were actually lost.
Understanding Rifka’s logic ->
– If we were actually lost, then, yes, we would need to stop and ask for directions.
– But we are not actually lost (implicitly assumed by Rifka to be true).
– So, we do not need to stop and ask for directions (conclusion).
Craig’s counter:
The fact that we are lost is precisely why we need to stop.
Question: What is the function of Craig’s comment?
Let’s think about this.
Rifka considers it as a given that they (Rifka and Craig) are not lost. It is based on this implicit idea that she concludes that they do not need to stop and ask for directions.
Craig’s comment goes directly against what Rifka assumes to be true. As per Craig, they are lost.
So, Craig’s comment seems to be attacking the truth of something that Rifka assumes to be true (without explicitly stating so).
With this thought, let’s go through the answer choices.
- Choice A:
- One can argue that the function of Craig’s comment is to argue against Rifka’s conclusion. This part is OK.
- But Craig offers a clear reason to reject Rifka’s implicit premise (Rifka implicitly considers as true that they are not lost – this is an implicit (not stated) premise (considered as true by the person making the argument).
- So, choice A is incorrect.
- Choice B:
- Does Craig deny one of Rifka’s implicit premises? Yes. As we have just seen above. Clearly, Craig’s comment is performing this function.
- Does this comment help to thereby arrive at a different conclusion? Yes. Rifka’s implicitly considers that they are not lost. Craig denies the truth of this. He states as a fact that they are lost. Based on his outright denial of Rifka’s implicit premise, Craig arrives at a different conclusion to Rifka’s (“we need to stop” vs. “we do not need to stop”).
- Choice B is correct.
- Choice C:
- While Craig does imply that Rifka’s conclusion is invalid, he does not accept the truth of Rifka’s premises. As we have seen, Craig denies the truth of Rifka’s implicit premise. The issue with choice C is “by accepting the truth of its premises”. Not true.
- Choice D:
- Craig’s comment is not a counter-example of anything.
- Choice E:
- If the function of Craig’s comment to affirm or confirm the truth of the stated premise – “We would not need to do that unless, of course, we were lost.”? Not at all. It is to attack/deny Rifka’s unstated, implicit premise.
Choice B is the best choice.
Hope this helps!
Harsha