Question about logical gaps in CAT Verbal

[markdanielsalvador]

First of all, let me state that I completely understand that GMAT logic does not mimic LSAT logic entirely.

With that said, I did pretty well on the LSAT and have found it to be helpful to my GMAT Verbal studies. However, I came across a few logical flaws in my latest CAT that I found problematic:

1. Most are = Some are not

On the LSAT, if an argument tells you "Most people in this room are women," it is still entirely possible that "All people in this room are women." You are incorrect on the LSAT to assume that "Some are not women."

However, the MGMAT CR question "Creative Professionals" ignores this logical gap. You actually are required to assume the fallacy in order to select the correct answer.

2. Perception vs. Reality

On the LSAT, if a premise tells you "All men say that they are strong," you don't know if any of them actually are strong. All you know is that they say that they are.

However, on MGMAT CR question "High School Finances," you are told that "one-third of high school seniors say that they have 'significant financial responsibilities.'" Once again, you must assume the fallacy--that seniors do have significant financial responsibilities--in order to answer correctly.

So, my question is this: Were these small mistakes by the question writers, or are we supposed to accept these as true on the GMAT:

1. Most cats are cute = some cats are not cute?
2. Matt says he is experienced = Matt is experienced?

Thanks in advance, and no disrespect intended.

[markdanielsalvador]

Here are the questions for reference:

Analyst: Creative professionals, such as clothing designers, graphic designers, and decorators, often have very poor managerial skills and do not succeed when they try to run their own businesses. In fact, most of these creative types are less skilled in business than is the average white-collar professional who does not work in a creative field. Generally, creative talent and business acumen rarely go hand in hand.

If the analyst's argument is taken as true, which of the following statements can properly be concluded?

(A) No successful businesspeople are creative.
(B) Some creative types are not less skilled at business than is the average white-collar worker who is not creative.
(C) Creativity precludes success in business.
(D) Any white-collar worker who is not creative is more successful in business than any creative professional.
(E) Business is not a creative endeavor.

According to a recent study on financial roles, one-third of high school seniors say that they have "significant financial responsibilities." These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, contributing to food, shelter, or clothing for themselves or their families. At the same time, a second study demonstrates that a crisis in money management exists for high school students. According to this study, 80% of high school seniors have never taken a personal finance class even though the same percentage of seniors has opened bank accounts and one-third of these account holders has bounced a check.

Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?

(A) High schools would be wise to incorporate personal finance classes into their core curricula.
(B) At least one-third of high school seniors work part-time jobs after school.
(C) The number of high school seniors with significant financial responsibilities is greater than the number of seniors who have bounced a check.
(D) Any high school seniors who contribute to food, shelter, or clothing for themselves or their families have significant financial responsibilities.
(E) The majority of high school students have no financial responsibilities to their families.

[RonPurewal]

LSAT logical reasoning and GMAT critical reasoning are VERY different. In terms of the types of thinking you're asking about here, they are essentially polar opposites.

* LSAT logical reasoning is, for the most part, very logically rigorous. It's the kind of boolean logic that could be programmed into digital circuits.
If there are nit-picky exceptions to things, those exceptions generally need to be noticed, and they often play a large role in the problems.

* GMAT critical reasoning is almost completely NOT rigorous logic. You're supposed to interpret things in the most likely, or most reasonable, way.
In general, you are supposed to IGNORE nit-picky exceptions and farfetched/unreasonable interpretations.

For instance, if a GMAT problem tells you...
Examination of rubble from the ruins of ancient city X shows a pattern of destruction typical of earthquakes
... you are supposed to interpret this as "City X was destroyed by an earthquake".
If thoughts like "What if some other disaster magically created exactly the same pattern of destruction?" came to mind, your job would be to dismiss them immediately, because ... well, let's be serious here.

Going from LSAT-type reasoning to GMAT-type reasoning is a pretty big shift.

[RonPurewal]

In fact, you should be able to figure out what I wrote above, just by thinking about what these two different tests are aimed at.

* The LSAT is for future lawyers.
Think about lawyer-type reasoning. Consider the importance of weirdly formal logic"”and in particular of loopholes and technicalities in the law"”in the everyday reasoning of lawyers.
That's why LSAT logical reasoning works the way it does.

* The GMAT is for future business executives.
Executives have to respond to the market as a whole. In general, if there are small, weird exceptions to the rule of the market as a whole, then the executive's job is simply to ignore those things.
(That's not true if those "weird exceptions" are the business's primary customers ... but then they wouldn't be exceptions anymore. Within that set, there would be an even smaller set, the people who were weird exceptions even by the standard of that group of already weird outliers, and again your job would be to ignore them.)
Hence the way GMAT critical reasoning works.

Two completely different animals.

[RonPurewal]

If you aren't noticing the difference BUT are still doing reasonably well on both, then you are probably, to whatever extent, naturally adopting both of the correct mentalities.

E.g., let's say someone thinks for a while about what his/her relationship partner might do or have done, and possibly changes some things in his/her life accordingly ... and then the same person sits down and works on his/her tax deductions.

In the first instance, the person's actions are driven largely by speculation"”which may be insightful, and may ultimately turn out to be well founded, but is still speculation. In the second, his/her actions are based on the specifics of the tax law. It's not what (s)he vaguely thinks might be deductible; it's what can be documented exactly, and what conforms to the tax code.

Needless to say, most people have absolutely no trouble doing these two things with completely different mentalities, and switching effortlessly between the two. (In fact, if someone approached both tax deductions and social relations with exactly the same attitude, that person would be labeled as having a psychological disorder.)

So, to whatever extent you're doing well on both tasks without being aware of the difference, you're probably just adopting the appropriate mindsets without thinking.
If you want to improve your performance, though, you'll have to start recognizing the differences.