GMAT 逻辑分析题 (1)

cherry_rui

Only a very small percentage of graduates from Peking University ever become board members of the 300 largest Chinese corporations. This shows that graduates from Peking University are underrepresented in the most important corporate boardrooms in China.

Which one of the following points out a flaw committed in the argument?

(A) Three hundred is too small a sample on which to base such a sweeping conclusion about Peking University graduates.

(B) It is irrelevant to smaller corporations whether the largest corporations in China would agree to have significant numbers of representatives from Peking University on the boards of the largest corporations.

(C) It is a mistake to take the 300 largest Chinese corporations to be typical of corporate boardrooms generally.

(D)The percentage of graduates from Peking University who serve on the boards of the 300 largest Chinese corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from Peking University.

(E) The presence of graduates from Peking University on a corporate board does not necessarily imply that that corporation will be more financially successful than it has been in the past.

steinlala

好难阿。。。觉得gmat里面逻辑最难了。。。差不多做了多少题就错了多少题。。。一点儿头绪都米有。。。有的时候看答案解释都搞不懂。。。

cherry_rui

The correct answer is (D). kevin0214 gave a very convincing analysis.

Answer (C)  It is a mistake to take the 300 largest Chinese corporations to be typical of corporate boardrooms generally.

The problem with answer (C) is that while the argument equates the 300 largest corporations with the "most important corporate boardrooms," answer choice (C) equates the 300 largest corporations with "typical corporate boardrooms". This is like comparing apples with oranges, which is never allowed in logic reasoning. There is a difference, no matter how subtle, between the "most important boardrooms" and "typical corporate boardrooms."  Therefore, answer choice (C) is out.

Let's take a look at answer (D) The percentage of graduates from Peking University who serve on the boards of the 300 largest Chinese corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from Peking University.

Interesting. If you read the stimulus carefully, you might realized that the flaw of the argument is -- while only a small percentage of graduates from Peking University eventuall make it to the corporate boardrooms (0.2%, 600 out of 30,0000), it's possible (although highly unlikely in reality) that everyone on a corporate board of 300 largest Chinese corporations (2 board member each, 600 total) could have been a graduate from Peking University. That would lead to the conclusion that Peking University graduates represent 100% of the most important corporate boardrooms in China.  Clearly the argument picked the wrong percentage as evidence to support its conclusion

Answer choice (D) best reflects this error in reasoning.

xianmengyao

D 对的呀

MarilynR

I choose D. 其实很明显，北京大学的毕业生很少进入TOP300的董事会并不能说明top300的董事会不是主要由北大毕业生组成。比如十年内北大毕业生有20000个（每年毕业2000人），只有1000个进入了TOP300董事会，5%的比例可以说是少的，但是这意味着平均每个公司的董事会由3个是来自北大的，董事会才几个人？北大比例就很高了。