A certain website has rules regarding behavior in the comments section of that website. If a comment is flagged (judged...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
A certain website has rules regarding behavior in the comments section of that website. If a comment is flagged (judged to be inappropriate by one of the website's moderators) because it includes a personal attack on another person, the comment will be deleted and the commenter will be permanently banned from commenting on the website. If a comment is flagged merely because it includes inappropriate language, the comment will be deleted and the commenter will receive a warning. If a comment is flagged for any reason and the commenter has previously received a warning for a comment on this website, he or she will be permanently banned from commenting. On the basis of these rules, a commenter, C, who had previously had one of his comments on the website flagged, was permanently banned after a second of C's comments on the website was flagged.
Based on the information provided, select for Must be true the statement about C's comments that must be true, and select for Must be false the statement about C's comments that must be false. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Solution: Website Comment Rules - Two-Part Analysis
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
First, Create an Argument Analysis Table| Passage Statement | Analysis & Implications |
| "If a comment is flagged... because it includes a personal attack... the commenter will be permanently banned" |
|
| "If a comment is flagged merely because it includes inappropriate language... the commenter will receive a warning" |
|
| "If a comment is flagged for any reason and the commenter has previously received a warning... permanently banned" |
|
| "C... had previously had one of his comments... flagged, was permanently banned after a second... was flagged" |
|
Established Facts:
- Personal attacks lead to immediate bans
- Inappropriate language alone leads to warnings (first offense)
- Any flagged comment after a warning leads to a ban
- C was NOT banned after the first comment
- C WAS banned after the second comment
Critical Deduction:
Since C wasn't banned after the first comment, that comment CANNOT have included a personal attack (which would have resulted in immediate ban). Therefore, the first comment must have been for inappropriate language only, and C received a warning.
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
First, Understand What Each Part Asks- Part 1 Focus: "Must be true" - We need a statement that is necessarily true based on our deductions
- Part 2 Focus: "Must be false" - We need a statement that is necessarily false based on our deductions
- Relationship: These should be complementary conclusions drawn from the same logical analysis
- Primary Inferences:
- The first comment did NOT include a personal attack (must be true)
- C received a warning after the first comment (must be true)
- Secondary Inferences:
- At most one comment could have included a personal attack (must be true)
- The statement "the first comment included a personal attack" must be false
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Let's evaluate each option:
"At most one of the flagged comments included a personal attack"
- What it claims: No more than one comment had a personal attack
- Fact Support: We know the first didn't have a personal attack; the second might or might not have
- Logical Validity: This MUST BE TRUE - only 0 or 1 personal attacks possible
- Part Suitability: Perfect for "Must be true"
"At least one of the flagged comments included a personal attack"
- What it claims: One or both comments had a personal attack
- Fact Support: Not necessarily supported - both could have been for inappropriate language
- Logical Validity: Could be true but not must be true
- Part Suitability: Not suitable for either part
"Neither of the flagged comments included a personal attack"
- What it claims: Zero personal attacks in either comment
- Fact Support: Possible but not necessary
- Logical Validity: Could be true but not must be true
- Part Suitability: Not suitable for either part
"The first of the flagged comments included a personal attack"
- What it claims: The first comment had a personal attack
- Fact Support: Contradicted by the fact that C wasn't banned after first comment
- Logical Validity: This MUST BE FALSE
- Part Suitability: Perfect for "Must be false"
"The second of the flagged comments did not include a personal attack"
- What it claims: The second comment lacked a personal attack
- Fact Support: Could be true (ban due to prior warning) or false
- Logical Validity: Not necessarily true or false
- Part Suitability: Not suitable for either part
- Part 1 Selection (Must be true): "At most one of the flagged comments included a personal attack" - This is necessarily true since we've proven the first comment didn't include a personal attack.
- Part 2 Selection (Must be false): "The first of the flagged comments included a personal attack" - This is necessarily false since C would have been banned immediately if it were true.
- Verification: Both answers are fully supported by our logical deductions without any speculation.