The following argument is logically flawed. The author's goal was to c

Hi chetan2u,

I am confused .


Please help me to interpret the data.
Lets take Premise 1 as an example

Premise 1: Every respondent to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.

In this case say 100 respondents reported being in a good mood. So are you saying that out of 100 ...say 50 respondents reported feeling satisfied.

ie

Being in a good mood is the main set and reported feeling satisfied is the subset ??

Regards­­

Yes exactly.

Take the opposite.

Premise 1: Every respondent to our survey who reported feeling satisfied also reported being in a good mood.

In this case say 100 respondents reported feeling satisfied. So out of 100 ...say 50 respondents reported being in good mood.

What happens to 100-50 or 50 respondents who reported feeling satisfied but not being in good mood.
The coloured word Every respondent in premise is no more valid.­

KarishmaB please explain this

KarishmaB chetan2u
It took hell lot of effort in comprehending the qstn stem of this qstn, any advice in how to tackle such qstn?­ Pls give expert's advice to my solution how it can be made more efficient.


Once you understand the qstn stem you can solve the question pretty easily.

Qstn stem asks us to choose two bold faces which when inverted can fill up the gap and make the argument logical.

Premise 1 says: Everyone who is satisfied is in a good mood
Premise 2 says: Everyone who has a central goal is in a good mood
Conclusion is ­everyone who is satisfied had a central goal.
Now,
This conclusion is only possible when people in a good mood are common in P1 and P2.
How?
Let's look at example:
Suppose 10 people are satisfied = 10 good mood
15 people have central goal = 15 good mood
If the number of good mood is 25 then conclusion cannot be logically derieved.

But if argument is something like:  Everyone who is satisfied is in a good mood and Everyone who is in a good mood has a central goal.


then we can logically conclude the author's conclusion.

 

These are conditional Statements. Every/Whenever etc signal 'if' conditional statements. 

Important: The author's goal was to craft the argument so that the conclusion follows logically from Premises 1 and 2 and so that both premises are necessary to draw the conclusion.
The argument as given is certainly flawed. How will it follow logically? (i.e. deductive logic) Identify that "conclusion follows logically" means that we should be able to deduce the conclusion. 

Premises:
If A, then B.
If B, then C
Conclusion: Hence if A then C.

A, B, C are "satisfied," "goal" and "mood" in some order.

The "reported good mood" phrasing is available twice so make it 'B' in our if then conditional shown above. 

If satisfied, then good mood.
If good mood, then central goal. 
Conclusion: Hence if satisfied, then central goal. 

Fits. So exchange "reported having a central goal " with "reported being in a good mood" (ANSWER)

Discussions on conditional statements:
https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8
https://youtu.be/BW8Ijrhjjq8

Video solution to this question: 
https://youtu.be/5G7RYdtP-wQ­

Your understanding is perfectly fine.

­Premise 1 says: Everyone who is satisfied is in a good mood
Premise 2 says: Everyone who has a central goal is in a good mood

The above basically talks of a larger circle 'good mood', and 'satisfied' & 'central goal' are two smaller circles within that circle of 'good mood'.
There may be zero overlap to complete overlap in these two smaller circles.

Conclusion is ­everyone who is satisfied had a central goal.
This conclusion now makes 'satisfied' circle part of 'central goal' circle. But as the colored portion says we do not know the overlap in the two smaller circle.
 

­KarishmaB GMATCoachBen Bunuel manasp35 chetan2u
1. Is my reasoning below correct or is just a coincidence that I chose the right ones?
2. What strategy can we follow in this kind of questions to answer them effectively? The reasoning below it was during the reviewing of the questions, when I solved it, it took me about 3min.­

According to the language of the question, is there not the possibility that someone reported JUST being in a good mood?

Before any changes to the argument, we have people satisfied and people having central goal as part of the bigger set of people feeling good. It is possible that the bigger set consists of people who are neither satisfied nor have a central goal. However, we cannot say what is the overlap between these smaller set of people.

But the conclusion says that every satisfied person has a central goal. For this we flip boldfaces in the statement 2.

Now who are satisfied are part of set of people having good mood, which is a part of set of people who have a central goal, meaning satisfied people also have a central goal. 

Posted from my mobile device­

In this question we are making changes in 2 boldface statements in 2nd premise but is it anywhere stated that these updates have to be made in 2nd statement? Boldface could refer to premise 1 or conclusion

Posted from my mobile device