Speaker: A certain ethical theory holds that everyone has six fundamental duties: to avoid causing harm to others, to promote...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
Speaker: A certain ethical theory holds that everyone has six fundamental duties: to avoid causing harm to others, to promote the common good, to act honorably, to be fair, to obey authority, and to be loyal. According to the theory, when these duties conflict, avoiding causing harm to others is more important than being fair or acting honorably, and being fair is more important than obeying authority. Promoting the common good is more important than being loyal but is less important than acting honorably or obeying authority.
Statement: The speaker's statements do NOT indicate that the duty to __1 is ever less important than any of other duties, and the statements do NOT indicate that the duty to 2__ is ever more important than any of the other duties. Select for 1 and 2 the options that complete the statement so that it is most accurate based on the information provided. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
Passage Statement | Analysis & Implications |
"everyone has six fundamental duties: to avoid causing harm to others, to promote the common good, to act honorably, to be fair, to obey authority, and to be loyal" |
|
"avoiding causing harm to others is more important than being fair or acting honorably" |
|
"being fair is more important than obeying authority" |
|
"Promoting the common good is more important than being loyal but is less important than acting honorably or obeying authority" |
|
Key Patterns Identified
- Established Rankings: We have explicit "greater than" relationships between specific duties
- Ranking Chains: Some duties create chains (e.g., harm avoidance > fairness > authority)
- No Universal Statements: The passage doesn't say any duty is always most/least important
- Limited Information: We only know the specific relationships stated, not all possible comparisons
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding Each Part
- Part 1 Focus: Find a duty that is NEVER stated to be less important than another
- Part 2 Focus: Find a duty that is NEVER stated to be more important than another
- Relationship: These represent the extremes - one duty with no stated superiors, one with no stated inferiors
Valid Inferences (Prethinking)
Let me map what we know about each duty:
Avoid causing harm:
- More important than: fairness, acting honorably
- Less important than: (none stated)
Be loyal:
- More important than: (none stated)
- Less important than: promoting common good
Other duties all have both higher and lower ranked duties stated.
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Evaluating Each Option
"avoid causing harm to others"
- What it claims: This duty as an answer
- Fact Support: Stated to be more important than fairness and honor; NO statement says anything is more important than it
- Logical Validity: Valid for Part 1 - never stated to be less important
- Part Suitability: Perfect for Part 1, not for Part 2
"be loyal"
- What it claims: This duty as an answer
- Fact Support: Stated to be less important than common good; NO statement says it's more important than anything
- Logical Validity: Valid for Part 2 - never stated to be more important
- Part Suitability: Perfect for Part 2, not for Part 1
Other options (promote common good, act honorably, be fair, obey authority):
- All have explicit statements showing them both more AND less important than other duties
- Cannot work for either part
Answer Selection Process
- Part 1 Selection: "avoid causing harm to others" - Only duty with no stated superiors
- Part 2 Selection: "be loyal" - Only duty with no stated inferiors
- Verification: Both answers rely solely on explicit passage statements without speculation
Trap Avoidance Check
- ✓ No over-inference - we only use stated relationships
- ✓ No assumptions about unstated comparisons
- ✓ Each answer is independently valid
- ✓ The pair completely addresses both parts of the question