Since 1978 when the copyright law was changed, books that are less than fifty years old must not be photocopied...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Since 1978 when the copyright law was changed, books that are less than fifty years old must not be photocopied without the publisher's permission. Thus, any book that has been photocopied since 1978 without the publisher's permission must be at least fifty years old.
The reasoning above exhibits a flaw similar to one in which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Since 1978 when the copyright law was changed, books that are less than fifty years old must not be photocopied without the publisher's permission. |
|
| Thus, any book that has been photocopied since 1978 without the publisher's permission must be at least fifty years old. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a legal rule about what books can't be photocopied, then flips that rule around to make a claim about books that were photocopied illegally.
Main Conclusion:
Any book photocopied without permission since 1978 must be at least 50 years old.
Logical Structure:
This is a flawed logical reversal. The premise says 'If under 50 years old, then can't photocopy without permission.' But the conclusion incorrectly flips this to 'If photocopied without permission, then must be 50+ years old.' This ignores that people might illegally photocopy newer books too - just because something is prohibited doesn't mean it never happens.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Misc - Parallel Reasoning Flaw. We need to find an argument that makes the same logical error as the original argument.
Precision of Claims
The argument deals with conditional rules about what 'must not' happen versus what 'must' be true, involving age thresholds and legal permissions.
Strategy
The original argument commits a classic logical flaw: it assumes that because legal photocopying is restricted to books 50+ years old, ANY illegal photocopying must involve books 50+ years old. But this ignores that people might simply break the law and illegally photocopy newer books too. We need to find parallel scenarios where someone incorrectly assumes that rule-breaking only happens in permitted categories, rather than recognizing that people might just ignore the rules entirely.