GMAT Course Table of Contents | Email 800score | 800score GMAT Home Print length: 40 pages
A. Learn how to identify arguments Is the text an argument? An argument here doesn't mean a dispute or controversy. It means an attempt to provide a reason for believing something by citing something else. It is an attempt to show that something is true, or probably true, by appealing to something else, some reason or evidence, which indicates that it is true. The following text includes an argument: New evidence shows that the AIDS virus may not be as lethal as it has been thought to be and that some people may be able to develop a defense against it. The evidence involves an appreciable number of people who have been HIV positive for many years (some of them for twelve years or more). Lab tests show that the virus is present in their blood. But they have not developed any symptoms of AIDS. They continue to be in good health and show no signs of developing the disease. Some researchers estimate that as many as 5% of those infected by the virus may be in this category and that they will never develop the disease. In this text a claim is made about how lethal the AIDS virus is. It may not be 100% lethal. Some people may be able to resist it, perhaps because of a natural immunity. And some evidence is cited to show that this claim is true. That evidence is the (alleged) fact that some people have had the AIDS virus in their system for many years and show no signs at all of developing the disease. It is plausible to think that the person who wrote that text intended to cite that fact as a reason for believing the claim about the lethality of the AIDS virus.
In an argument some claims are put forward in support of others. The claim that is being supported is the conclusion. The claims which are alleged to support the conclusion are the premises. There may be more than one conclusion in an argument, and often, there is more than one premise. In the argument above about AIDS, there is a closely related set of conclusions. New evidence shows that the AIDS virus may not be as lethal as it has been thought to be and that some people may be able to develop a defense against it. In support of these conclusions, the author cites the (alleged) fact that some people have been infected with the virus for a long time without showing any signs of the disease itself. This latter assertion is the premise in this argument.
When you are able to identify premises and conclusions, you may easily analyze how strongly the premises back up the conclusion. In many of the Critical Reasoning questions, there will be a gap between the premises and the conclusion--the assumptions. Your objective is to find the gaps (the assumptions) and use that knowledge to find the solution. For example, in the AIDS argument above, one of the unstated assumptions is that the evidence about AIDS is accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B. Types of Arguments (If you have limited time to prepare, skip to C.) Now that you can identify premises and conclusions, how are they structured into arguments?
Deductive arguments are arguments that show a tight connection between the premises and the conclusions. There is no possible way the conclusion could fail to be true if the premises are true. (That is not to say, of course, that the premises are true.) Arguments in mathematics and in pure logic are often of this sort: "If no one watered my plants during my vacation, they will all die. No one watered my plants during my vacation. Therefore, my plants have all died." The premises of that argument might possibly be false. But, if they are both true, then there is no way the conclusion can be false. There are other arguments with a looser connection. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true also; it would be surprising if the conclusion were false; we have good reason to think that the conclusion is true, and so on. These are the inductive arguments. The AIDS argument above is inductive. The conclusion of the argument is that it seems probable that in some way the disease has been successfully stalled. In both sorts of arguments, the premises support the conclusion if those premises are true. But if they are false, they provide no such support. Discovering that a premise is false, then, undercuts the force of both deductive and inductive arguments. Because inductive arguments are not conclusive, they may be weakened (perhaps rejected entirely) even if we continue to recognize that their premises are perfectly true. If, for example, researchers were to identify a virus very similar to the AIDS virus, and if they discovered that the incubation period for this virus in chimpanzees often exceeded fifteen years, that discovery would seriously weaken the argument in the example. But it would not show that any of the premises of the original argument were false. It would not show that some people have not survived, and in good health, for twelve years after having been infected. It weakens the argument by introducing another possibility, that the AIDS virus may have a longer incubation period than previously thought plausible. Inductive arguments can also be strengthened by the introduction of new data. If it were discovered that there is a similar virus which infects chimpanzees, and for which many chimpanzees develop a resistance which enables them to live out a normal life span in good health, that would further bolster the conclusion that perhaps some humans can make a similar defense against AIDS.
|
C. Putting it into your own words
Apartment building owners argue that rent control should be abolished. Although they acknowledge that they would increase rents in the short term, owners argue that in the long term the rent increases would lead to greater profitability. Higher profits would lead to increased apartment construction. Increased apartment construction would then lead to a greater supply of residences and lower prices as the potential apartment residents have a better selection. Thus, abolishing rent control would ultimately reduce prices. Try to express that complicated argument in your own words? Simple. Abolishing rent control will increase the supply of housing (premise); greater supply leads to lower prices (premise); and thus abolishing rent control leads to lower rents (conclusion). It is a supply/demand argument. Once you put it into your own terms, the question becomes much easier to understand.
|
D. Evaluate an argument Now that you can break a stimulus into premises and conclusions and put the argument into your own words, how do you find errors in the arguments? The Usual Suspects: Common Logical Fallacies We've identified several logical errors that commonly appear in the Critical Reasoning questions. 1. Circular Reasoning Here, an unsubstantiated assertion is used to justify another unsubstantiated assertion, which is, or at least could be, used to justify the first statement. For instance, Joe and Fred show up at an exclusive club. When asked if they are members, Joe says "I'll vouch for Fred." When Joe is asked for evidence that he's a member, Fred says, "I'll vouch for him." Here is an argument that commits the fallacy of the biased sample: ln a recent survey conducted by Wall Street Weekly of its readers, 80% of the respondents indicated their strong disapproval of increased capital gains taxes. This survey clearly shows that increased capital gains taxes will meet with strong opposition from the electorate. The data for the inference in this argument is drawn from a sample that is not representative of the entire electorate. Since the survey was conducted of people who invest, not all members of the electorate have an equal chance of being included in the sample. Moreover, persons who read about investing are more likely to have an opinion on the topic of taxes on investment different from the population at large. The Fallacy of the Insufficient Sample is committed whenever an inadequate sample is used to justify the conclusion drawn. I have worked with three people from New York City and found them to be obnoxious, pushy and rude. It is obvious that people from New York City have a bad attitude. The data for the inference in this argument is insufficient to support the conclusion. Three observations of people are not sufficient to support a conclusion about 10 million. One of the most often employed fallacies, ad hominem means "to the man" and indicates an attack that is made upon a person rather than upon the statements that person has made. An example is "Don't listen to my opponent; he's a homosexual." Reasoning by analogy functions by comparing two similar things. Because they are alike in various ways, the fallacy is that it is likely they will share another trait as well. Faulty Analogy arguments draw similarities between the things compared that are not relevant to the characteristic being inferred in the conclusion. Here's an example of a Faulty Analogy fallacy: Ted and Jim excel at both football and basketball. Since Ted is also a track star, it is likely that Jim also excels at track. In this example, numerous similarities between Ted and Jim are taken as the basis for the inference that they share additional traits. Here the speaker attributes an argument to an opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. For instance, a political candidate might charge that his opponent "wants to let all prisoners go free," when in fact his opponent simply favors a highly limited furlough system. The person is portrayed as someone that he is not. This is a "false cause" fallacy in which something is associated with something else because of mere proximity of time. One often encounters people assuming that because one thing happened after another, the first caused it, as with "I touched a toad; I have a wart. The toad caused the wart." The error in arguments that commit this fallacy is that their conclusions are causal claims that are not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence. Here are two examples of the After This, Therefore Because of This Fallacy: Ten minutes after walking into the auditorium, I began to feel sick to my stomach. There must have been something in the air in that building that caused my nausea. The stock market declined shortly after the election of the president,thus indicating the lack of confidence the business community has in the new administration. In the first example, a causal connection is posited between two events simply on the basis of one occurring before the other. Without further evidence to support it, the causal claim based on the correlation is premature. The second example is typical of modern news reporting. The only evidence offered in this argument to support the claim that the decline in the stock market was caused by the election of the president is the fact that election preceded the decline. While it has been a causal factor, to argue that it is the cause without additional information is to commit the After This, Therefore, Because of This Fallacy. This is the so-called black or white fallacy. Essentially, it says "Either you believe what I'm saying, or you must believe exactly the opposite." Here is an example of the black or white fallacy: Since you don't believe that the earth is teetering on the edge of destruction, you must believe that pollution and other adverse effects that man has on the environment are of no concern whatsoever. The argument above assumes that there are only two possible alternatives open to us. There is no room for a middle ground. This fallacy is committed when it is assumed, without justification, that background conditions have remained the same at different times/locations. In most instances, this is an unwarranted assumption for the simple reason that things rarely remain the same over extended periods of time, and things rarely remain the same from place to place. The last Democrat winner of the New Hampshire primary won the general election. This year, the winner of the New Hampshire primary will win the general election. The assumption operative in this argument is that nothing has changed since the last primary. No evidence or justification is offered for this assumption. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase that has more than one meaning is employed in different meanings throughout the argument.
In this example, the word repression is used in two completely different contexts. "Repression" in Freud's mind meant restricting sexual and psychological desires. "Repression" in the second context does not mean repression of individual desires, but government restriction of individual liberties, such as that in a totalitarian state. This means "does not follow," which is short for the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To say, "The house is white; therefore, it must be big" is an example of the Non Sequitor fallacy. It may be a big house, but there is no intrinsic connection with its being white. A group of kindergartners are studying a frog, trying to determine its sex. "I wonder if it's a boy frog or a girl frog," says one student. "I know how we can tell!" pipes up another. "All right, how?" asks the teacher, resigned to the worst. Beams the child: "We can vote." |
E. Evaluate an argument's strength and validity Now that you may identify arguments and are able to identify logical flaws, you may assess an argument's strength and validity. More than simply "putting it in your own words," you need to evaluate an argument's persuasiveness. Actively read the stimulus. Always evaluate the argument and check for assumptions as you are reading the passage. Virtually every passage you read has some form of logical flaw. When you read the essay, make sure to be actively seeking those flaws. Read the stimulus with a specific purpose of finding assumptions and errors in logic.
|
F. Get an idea of the right answer If you can identify an argument and assess its strengths, you may come up with a right answer after reading the stem. Test takers should not be discouraged if they cannot come up with a pre-phrase. Some questions are difficult and an immediate answer will not jump out at you.
If you have gone as far as to be able to identify and assess an argument, don't fall into a trap when picking an answer. Test writing is an extremely time-consuming task. One of the most difficult parts of test writing is generating the "junk" wrong answer choices. Test writers have an easy way out. On nearly every question you will see wrong answers that are either the trick opposites or scope traps. These wrong answers do not do much to test ability; they are simply there to fool inexperienced and unskilled test takers. Test writers like to use them because they take a few seconds to write and fool most students, thereby making the question "harder." On the positive side, a skilled test taker may quickly identify these two trap questions types. Most of the wrong answers in any given Verbal test will be one of the two types of junk answers. If you can identify the junk answer choices, you may thereby eliminate wrong answers and increase your chances of getting the right answer. Below we have several examples.
1. "All of the following may be inferred from the passage EXCEPT," then give a few borderline answers and one answer that absolutely may be inferred from the passage (which someone picks automatically if he forgot the "EXCEPT"). 2. Ask for an assumption in an argument, then give an answer choice that is a summary. 3. "Which of the following weakens the argument above," then give an answer choice that obviously strengthens the argument. These tricks are intended to catch students who rush through questions. However, you may turn this tactic to your advantage if you read the question stems slowly and carefully. Then you may identify the trick opposites, eliminate them as answer choices, and increase the chances of getting the right answers. The Scope Trap Scope is one of the most important concepts for doing well on the verbal section, particularly for high scorers. Why? Put yourself in the position of the test question writers. They must write difficult questions. Only one of the five choices is correct; the rest are junk answers. They have to write questions that a certain number of students will get wrong and they have to make up "junk" answers to fool people. The issue of scope solves both problems for test question writers: it allows them to easily generate wrong answers, and it makes the questions harder because scope is a challenging issue. Most critical reasoning or reading comprehension questions have junk answers that are "outside of the question's scope." Some common examples of scope junk answers are choices that are too narrow, too broad, or literally have nothing to do with the author's points. Also, watch for and eliminate choices that are too extreme to match the argument's scope; they're usually signaled by such words as all, always, never, none, and so on. Choices that are in some way qualified are usually correct for arguments that are moderate in tone and contain such words as usually, sometimes, probably.
Some scientists believe that carbon dioxide induced global warming may increase the number of hurricanes in the future and their severity. What if someone inferred from that statement that All of this season's severe hurricanes were caused by global warming. That statement would be outside of the scope of the original argument. The inference made is outside the scope of the argument. The argument is not that strong. What about this statement: Some of this season's storms may have been caused and exacerbated by global warming. This statement is more measured and is within the scope of the original argument.
Strategy: If the question asks "which of the following is NOT an assumption of the argument" or "which of the following does NOT describe an argument made in the passage above," the answer will often be the one with extreme language.
Apartment building owners argue that rent control should be abolished. Although they acknowledge that they would increase rents in the short term, owners argue that in the long term the rent increases would lead to greater profitability. Higher profits would lead to increased apartment construction. Increased apartment construction would then lead to a greater supply of residences and lower prices as the potential apartment residents have a better selection. Thus, abolishing rent control would ultimately reduce prices. Name an assumption made by the owners: (hint: this is a difficult question, but you may eliminate 4 of the 5 answers as outside the scope of the argument). Which possible answers are outside of the scope? The scope is the argument that deregulation will increase supply and lower prices. "Name an assumption" means find a direct assumption of that supply/demand argument. a) Current residents of rent control apartments would be able to find new apartments once their rent increased--is this outside of the scope? b) The fundamental value of any society is to house its citizens. Is this outside of the scope? Again, nice sentiment, but this does not directly tie into the argument. c) Only current apartment owners would profit significantly from market deregulation. Is this outside of the scope? The profitability of the apartment owners is not directly relevant. Note: of course if the profitability of the apartments increases, it would help increase supply because other companies would be drawn into the market, thus increasing supply. Indeed this looks good and as if it is an assumption, but "Only current apartment owners" is too limiting. How about newer apartment owners? The profits made by "only current owners" is not the issue at hand; it is the prices of apartments. Again, as previously mentioned, answer choices that use words such as "only" tend to be outside the scope of the question. Here "only" is too restrictive and allows you to eliminate this answer choice. d) New apartment construction will generate a great number of jobs. This is clearly outside of the scope. e) The increase in the number of apartments available would exceed the number of new potential apartment residents. Aha! This is an argument about supply and demand, and this is an answer about supply and demand. This is clearly within the scope of the argument, and it is the correct answer. If demand rose with new apartment construction, then prices would not decline, invalidating their argument. Optional Strategy: Some students prefer to read the question stem first and then read the stimulus itself. This lets the user look more specifically for what the question is asking and identify the question type beforehand. You may choose to this strategy. Many test prep companies recommend this approach. Use your own preference. |
||||||||
II. Typical Critical Reasoning Question Types A. Must Be True Questions
Must Be True Questions are extremely common. These are the typical Must Be True Questions:
Every store on Main Street in Summitville has an awning, and all of these awnings are either green or red. If the statement above is true, which one of the following must also be true?
a) I only Explanation: Note that this question is not an argument. Statement I may not be true: the question states that all of the awnings on Main Street are either green or red, but this does not preclude the possibility that all of the awnings on Main Street are red. Statement III may not be true either: the question states that every store on Main Street has either a red awning or a green awning, but this does not preclude the possibility that a store on some other street has a red awning. Statement II must be true: if every store on Main Street has an awning, then a store without an awning cannot be on Main Street. The correct answer is B.
An assumption is an unstated premise that supports the author's conclusion. It's the connection between the stated premises and the conclusion. An assumption is something that the author's conclusion depends upon. Assumption questions are extremely common and have stems that look like this:
Here is an example:
Express that complicated argument in your own words. Premise 1: Abolishing rent control will increase the supply of housing (premise). Conclusion: Abolishing rent control leads to lower rents (conclusion). It is a supply/demand argument. Try to find gaps between premises. Look at premise 1: Abolishing rent control will increase the supply of housing. Look at premise 2: Greater supply leads to lower prices.
There are many reasons why individuals want to run their own businesses. Some foresee more personal satisfaction if they are successful in launching their own business, while others are interested mainly in the prospect of larger financial rewards. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, tax regulations and other changes have encouraged increasing numbers of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs to start new enterprises. Since 1980, some one-half million new ventures have been started. Not all have succeeded, of course. The above statement makes which of the following assumptions?
|
C. Strengthen and Weaken Questions Assumptions connect premises to conclusions. You may strengthen or weaken an argument by strengthening or weakening the assumptions. Here are some examples of Strengthen/Weaken question stems: Strengthening:
Weakening:
. 2. Identify assumptions. 3. Eliminate answer choices that do not work. Eliminate answer choices that do not strengthen/weaken the assumptions as the question asks. Strategy: on most other verbal questions, you eliminate potential answers that use strong language. The exception are the strengthen/weaken questions. On these questions, extreme answers (using words such as only, the most, extremely) have an increased chance of being correct. The reason? Extreme answers will have a more powerful weakening/strengthening effect on assumptions. 4. The final answer that remains is the correct answer.
1) The postal service is badly mismanaged. Thirty years ago, first-class letter delivery cost only three cents. Since then, the price has increased sevenfold, with an actual decrease in the speed and reliability of service. All of the following would tend to weaken the conclusion of the argument above EXCEPT:
c) Private delivery services usually charge more than does the postal service for comparable delivery services.
Explanation: the conclusion here is that the postal service is poorly managed. We are looking for something that would not weaken the argument, in other words, something that suggests incompetent management, something that doesn't excuse the post office's poor performance.
Choice b) Unprecedented increases in the cost of fuel for trucks and planes have put severe upward pressures on postal delivery costs. This would seem to excuse the poor service/price because costs have increased dramatically. Choice c) Private delivery services usually charge more than does the postal service for comparable delivery services. This would seem to excuse the poor service/price because other services are not as efficient. Choice d) The average delivery time for a first-class letter three decades ago was actually slightly longer than it is today. This shows they have made improvements in service, suggesting that the postal service isn't all that bad after all. Choice e) The average level of consumer prices overall has increased fourfold over the last thirty years. Since the price of postage has increased seven times over, this suggests that postal prices have increased at a rate much quicker than inflation. Thus, choice E suggests that there is price gouging and does support the original argument, making this the correct answer.
|
D. Main Point Questions In MAIN POINT questions, you have to identify the conclusion of an argument. You are trying to find the author's point and should approach this question in a similar way to the reading comprehension main point questions. They come in several different formats:
The conclusion of arguments in Main Point questions is usually not directly stated. To find the conclusion, identify the premises and then identify the conclusion drawn from the premises. Main Point questions differ from the other Critical Reasoning questions in that the argument in the stimulus is usually valid. (In most other Critical Reasoning questions the reasoning is flawed.) How to approach Main Point Questions:
SAMPLE QUESTION Although Locke has been hailed as a giant figure in European intellectual history, his ideas were largely borrowed from his predecessors, now unfairly neglected by historians. Furthermore, Locke never wrote a truly great book; his most widely known works are muddy in style, awkwardly constructed, and often self-contradictory. a) Locke made use of ideas without acknowledging his predecessors as the sources of those ideas. b) Current historians are re-evaluating the work of Locke in the light of present-day knowledge. c) Locke's contributions to the development of European thought have been greatly exaggerated. d) Historians should reexamine Locke's place in European intellectual history. e) Although Locke's ideas were important, his way of expressing them in writing was sadly inadequate.
Explanation: The author makes two assertions about Locke: that his ideas were not original and that his books were not very good. On the basis of these assertions, the author concludes that Locke's reputation as an intellectual giant is undeserved. Choice (C) accurately summarizes this conclusion. Choice (A) focuses on a subsidiary point, not the main idea; moreover, it makes an assumption unsupported by the passage namely, that Locke did not acknowledge the sources of his ideas. Choice (B) is wrong because although the passage clearly indicates that the author is "re-evaluating" Locke's work, it does not suggest that "current historians" in general are doing so. Similarly, (D) implies that the author recommends that other historians re-examine Locke. Since no recommendation exists in the argument, Choice (C) is the only option. SAMPLE QUESTION Which of the following is the author of the above argument trying to imply? a) The proposed retail store can make money despite being in the middle of a war zone. b) Wars are profitable for retail. c) Kosovo is not as politically unstable as Beirut. d) Opponents of a new construction company in Kosovo are probably biased. e) The proposed company in Kosovo will do better than the construction company in Beirut.
The author is using his prior experience to make a generalization. If he thought wars were profitable, he would be more encouraging of the venture instead of "not inadvisable." (B) is a matter of degree; he is implying that war is not bad for business, but he is not arguing that war is good for business. (A) is the correct answer.
Strategy: This question illustrates a point that will undoubtedly frustrate students with a poor grasp of the English language. This question does not ask you to assess a logical argument, but to measure the degree of enthusiasm for an argument. Measure the tone and strength an author puts into his point of view when assessing questions, particularly when the question asks you to find the author's conclusion. Students with a poor grasp of the English language should move very carefully through these Main Point questions to carefully assess the writer's viewpoint and his enthusiasm in expressing it.
|
E. Paradox Questions These questions present you with a paradox, a seeming contradiction in the argument, and ask you to resolve it or explain how that contradiction could exist. Paradox questions are rare and more common at the higher skill levels. Here are some examples of the ways in which these questions are worded:
How to approach paradox questions 1. Read the argument and find the apparent paradox, discrepancy, or contradiction. 2. State the apparent paradox, discrepancy, or contradiction in your own words. 3. Use POE (process of elimination). The best answer will explain how both sides of the paradox, discrepancy, or contradiction can be true. Eliminate answers that are out of scope. SAMPLE QUESTION Inflation rose by 5.1% over the 2nd quarter, up from 4.1% during the first quarter of the year, and higher than the 3.3% recorded during the same time last year. However, the higher price index did not seem to alarm Wall Street, as stock prices remained steady. Which of the following, if true, could explain the reaction of Wall Street? a) Stock prices were steady because of a fear that inflation would continue. b) The President announced that he was concerned about rising inflation. c) Economists warned that inflation would persist. d) Much of the quarterly increase in the price level was due to a summer drought's effect on food prices. e) Other unfavorable economic news had overshadowed the fact of inflation.
|
E. Paradox Questions These questions present you with a paradox, a seeming contradiction in the argument, and ask you to resolve it or explain how that contradiction could exist. Paradox questions are rare and more common at the higher skill levels. Here are some examples of the ways in which these questions are worded:
How to approach paradox questions 1. Read the argument and find the apparent paradox, discrepancy, or contradiction. 2. State the apparent paradox, discrepancy, or contradiction in your own words. 3. Use POE (process of elimination). The best answer will explain how both sides of the paradox, discrepancy, or contradiction can be true. Eliminate answers that are out of scope. SAMPLE QUESTION Inflation rose by 5.1% over the 2nd quarter, up from 4.1% during the first quarter of the year, and higher than the 3.3% recorded during the same time last year. However, the higher price index did not seem to alarm Wall Street, as stock prices remained steady. Which of the following, if true, could explain the reaction of Wall Street? a) Stock prices were steady because of a fear that inflation would continue. b) The President announced that he was concerned about rising inflation. c) Economists warned that inflation would persist. d) Much of the quarterly increase in the price level was due to a summer drought's effect on food prices. e) Other unfavorable economic news had overshadowed the fact of inflation.
|
F. Reasoning Questions Reasoning questions ask you to describe how the argument was made, not necessarily what it says. Here are some examples of the ways in which these questions are worded:
How to approach Reasoning Questions 1. Read the argument and find the conclusion. 2. State the reasoning in your own words. Describe how the author gets from the premises to the conclusion. 3. Use POE. The best answer will describe the reasoning used in the argument. Eliminate answer choices that don't match the reasoning used in the argument.
SAMPLE QUESTION There is a piece of folk wisdom expressed in the saying, "If it is not broken, don't fix it." A factory manager who accepted that saying would, on that account, be least likely to: a) agree to union demands, in the interest of safety, for better lighting in the stairwells and storage areas. b) respond to the difficulty of retaining skilled electronic technicians by establishing an on-site day-care center for small children. c) order the immediate replacement of windows broken in a strike. d) replace the quality control supervisor after receiving several complaints about defective units in recent shipments from the factory. e) institute a program of preventive maintenance for major pieces of production machinery.
Explanation: The point of the proverb "If it is not broken, don't fix it" is that tampering with something which is not an urgent problem is unnecessary. All of the alternatives involve the manager's making some change or taking some action. But the first four represent the manager's action as being a response to a particular existing problem. They are not against the spirit of the proverb. But preventive maintenance, over-hauling the machine before it breaks down, seems to be just what the proverb advises against.(E) is the correct answer. |
Extra Questions Easy 1. Governor Dupont is an outspoken critic of agricultural subsidies for farmers in his state. However, a local paper recently published documents proving that Dupont received $500,000 in federal money to buy equipment for use in his apple orchards. Therefore, Dupont should be forced to return the money or should resign from office. If true, which of the following statements would reveal the most serious flaw in this argument? A) There is no precedent for the resignation of a governor from office in the state. The conclusion drawn by the speaker is flawed because of its assumption that the contradiction in the governor’s behavior and his actions is punishable by law. Although his criticism of agricultural subsidies is hypocritical given his own acceptance of federal behavior, if there is no law against such hypocrisy, Dupont cannot be “forced” to return the money nor compelled to resign from office. Choice B is correct. All of the other choices present more complicated statements, but statements which are ultimately irrelevant to the accuracy of the conclusion. The fact that there is no precedent for a governor’s resignation, as is stated in choice A, does not preclude the possibility of the resignation of the current governor. Choice C –whether or not the paper has the documents in its possession— is not relevant to the conclusion, which states that because of the discrepancy between Dupont’s words and his actions, he should resign. Similarly, choice D does not present as strong a claim as does choice B: D merely lessens Dupont’s wrongdoing while B addresses the flaw in the argument by stating that hypocrisy is not necessarily a punishable offense. Answer E is irrelevant to Dupont’s fate and to the argument as a whole. B.
2. An oil company is planning to introduce a new substance, CleanBurn, to its gasoline. CleanBurn works by increasing the octane rating and thereby decreasing carbon monoxide emitted. The company claims that if consuming begin using gasoline with 2 percent by volume of the additive, carbon monoxide emissions from automobiles will be reduced significantly. All of the following strengthen the above argument EXCEPT: A) The 2 percent by volume CleanBurn replaces gasoline; thus the rate of fossil fuel consumption will slow with the use of the additive. The argument that the use of CleanBurn will reduce total carbon monoxide emissions is weakened by the suggestion that automobiles using the produce will be less fuel-efficient than those using normal gasoline. Even if the substance creates a cleaner fuel, the total emissions created by traveling a certain distance may actually be higher if C is correct. Thus, C is the statement which does not strengthen the claim of the oil company. The remaining choices all serve to strengthen the claim. C. Medium 1. There has been a sharp decline in revenue from television advertisements in the state, and three of the main networks are considering major cuts in their programming and news offerings. At the same time, residents of the state are watching more TV than ever, and many smaller local channels are flourishing financially. Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradiction in the argument above? A) Six months ago, the three main networks agreed to cut in half the rates charged for 15- and 30- second advertisements.
You are asked to explain the seeming paradox of flourishing local stations set aside huge cuts in advertising revenue. How can the small channels be doing well when there is little money coming in from ads? Clearly, the local channels must have a different source of revenue. Answer E provides a possible scenario to explain these circumstances: the channels are receiving much of their funding from the public and are thus not subject to fluctuations in advertising revenue. Choice E is correct. Choices A and B offer two possible explanations for the stated decline in income from ads, but neither addresses the apparent paradox of thriving local stations. Choice C, if true, bolsters the claim that there has been an increase in smaller channels, but it does not link this fact to the decline in advertisement revenue. Choice D, again, may help to explain the faltering ad income, but does not resolve the paradox of the growth of local channels. E.
2. This year, the total number of hotdogs sold at Henry’s Hotdog stands was higher than the total number sold last year. However, the accountant for the Henry’s chain claims that, when individual stands are considered, the number of hotdogs sold actually decreased at every stand that was in operation both this year and last year. The accountant believes that the evidence points to a decline in interest for Henry’s Hotdogs. A) Henry’s opened at least one new hotdog stand in the past year. You are asked to identify the statement which explains the seeming paradox that, while the Henry’s chain as a whole is selling more hotdogs, each individual vendor that has existed for the past two years is selling fewer. Clearly, there must be a new source of hotdogs introduced sometime during the past year: that is, there must be additional Henry’s vendors. Answer A, the correct choice, suggests this explanation. Choice B would explain the accountant’s claim that individual vendors are selling fewer hotdogs, but leaves the question of growing overall sales unanswered. Choices C and E may be true, but are not necessarily true. That is, neither answer is necessary to explain the argument above, and neither is correct. The implications of answer D are irrelevant to the claim at hand, because the claim concerns the number of hotdogs sold rather than the price or revenues. A. 3. Rancher: the huge increase in the past decade in the region’s groundhog population is proving disastrous for horses. Groundhogs invade pastures by burrowing under fences, and dig narrow holes that are difficult to see. Horses trip on these holes, breaking or injuring limbs, and because these injuries are extremely difficult to treat and threaten the horse’s ability to survive, many ranchers are forced to put injured horses to sleep. The park service should address this problem by laying out poison traps to control the groundhog population; such a solution would be an immediate mechanism to reduce injuries for horses. Which of the following, if true, would present the most significant challenge to the argument of the rancher? A) A new splint product on the market dramatically increases the life expectancy of injured horses.
The rancher argues that reducing the groundhog population would provide an immediate decline in injured horses. However, the number of holes, and not the number of groundhogs, is the determinant of the injury rate for horses. If holes last 10 years, as is suggested by answer D, then while there may not be an increase in the number of holes, there will be no immediate decline during the next decade. Therefore, the rate of injury of horses will not decline immediately, and choice D is correct. Because the rancher argues that the poison will reduce the number of horse injuries, and not horse deaths, choice A is incorrect. The splint would reduce the number of horse deaths only. Choice B is irrelevant to the argument of the rancher, as is choice C. Answer E also fails to challenge the argument of the rancher in favor of poison traps. D.
4. A certain drug, when taken by patients with high blood pressures, was found to lower blood pressure to high-normal levels, or from an average of 30 percent to an average of 10 percent above normal. However, a survey of patients with normal blood pressures found that almost 80 percent exercised at least 5 days per week for 30 minutes and maintained a normal blood pressure. Therefore, the drug is not as effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with high blood pressure as is exercise. The validity of the above conclusion depends on the truth of which of the following? A) None of the patients with high blood pressure exercise regularly. D. The conclusion assumes that patients in high- and normal- blood pressure groups react in the same ways to the drug and to exercise. This assumption must be true in order to draw comparisons across the two groups. It is possible that exercise is not a direct cause of the blood pressure levels of those in the normal group. More importantly, it is uncertain that exercise would lower the blood pressure levels of those in the ‘high’ group. Only if exercise has the same effect on all patients (that is, it brings their blood pressure to normal) can we conclude that exercise is more effective in reducing blood pressure than is the drug, which lowers blood pressure to 10 percent above normal. Choice D is the correct answer. If answer A is true, there is no basis for comparison between the effects of the drug and of exercise on patients with high blood pressure, and the conclusion cannot be drawn. Similarly, if statement B is true, there is still no basis for this comparison. Choice C, a statement about the diets of the patients, is irrelevant to the argument at hand, as is choice E, because the conclusion concerns those in the high blood pressure group rather than those with normal blood pressure.
5. Editorial: Drug users who commit a violent crime should either receive stricter prison sentences or should undergo state-sponsored rehabilitation for drug use. Only if rehabilitation is likely to deter individuals from committing crimes in the future should it be the alternative that is recommended. Unfortunately, studies in other states have shown that it is rare for those who undergo rehabilitation to never again commit a crime. If the above statements are true, which of the following courses of action makes the most sense? A) Rehabilitation is most likely to have an effect on drug users who do not commit a crime. B. The editorial states that rehabilitation should only be recommended if that course of action will deter people from committing additional crimes. It also claims that rarely have those who have gone through rehabilitation never committed an additional crime. If both of these statements are accepted, it follows that a drug user who commits a violent crime should face a stricter prison term rather than be offered rehabilitation. Choice B is the correct answer.
HARD The reasoning behind this conclusion is called into question by which of the following? A) Consumers must pay a fee to obtain the Federal booklet by mail. C. You are asked to identify which of the five premises most weakens the conclusion that “at least 90 percent of Americans… are paying too much for their policy.” To do this, you must show that ownership of the booklet is not the only safeguard against overpayment. It is necessary to show the possibility that fewer than 90 percent are paying too much. Accepting the premise that 10 percent of insured drivers are aided by information in the booklet, to reject the reasoning behind the conclusion it must be shown that an additional segment of this population can reduce policy costs on their own. Choice C lends support to this conclusion, and is the correct answer. Answer A neither supports nor calls into question the reasoning employed in the conclusion: we know that 10 percent request the booklet; why they request it is irrelevant. Similarly, choice B does little to explain the error in the conclusion: even if it is true that the booklet contains ‘secrets,’ only 10 percent of insured drivers read it; it must be shown that fewer than 90 percent of non-readers might be paying too much. Statements about the 30 percent of Americans who do not have insurance are irrelevant, and answer D is incorrect. Choice E, even if true, does not go as far in pointing to the flaw in reasoning in the conclusion as does answer C. The passage states that automobile safety tips are provided by the booklet; for E to be a good answer, it would need to show, in addition to its current claim, that of the 90 percent of non-readers, some are acquiring auto safety knowledge elsewhere.
2. A local paper factory has been accused of leaching dangerous bleaching chemicals into a nearby stream. Extensive tests at sites along the stream confirm a significant increase in the concentration of these chemicals at locations close to the factory. The factory owner, in response, has offered to expand the firm’s existing environmental program by planting 500 additional trees in nearby neighborhoods over the next year. Which of the following principles offers the most serious criticism of the factory owner’s response? A) A solution to a problem should equal or exceed the magnitude of the problem itself. D. The factory owner has offered to address the problem of leaching chemicals by planting more trees in local neighborhoods. While the proposed solution would benefit the environment, it would do nothing to reduce the amount of chemicals entering the stream. While all of the five listed principles may be true in some cases, the one which best counters the attitude of the factory owner is choice D: A solution to a problem should address the primary problem rather than unrelated circumstances. As it stands, the owner seeks a solution that is unrelated (or only marginally related) to the problem of the chemical leakage.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the logic above? a. Golf carts break each other day, which causes golfers to pause their lessons for in average 20 minutes. The correct answer is A. a. As golf carts break often, they do not allow for the full increase in the speed of the lessons, therefore undermining the desire of the student to learn how to play golf faster. Especially as the student claims he/she will learn how to play golf twice as fast. With the golf cart breaking so often, the increase in the pace of the game would be less than twice.
2. Our customers often times complain of having to spend too much time in lines in our grocery stores. They believe that we rob them of their active time and demand changes. Therefore, ...... Choose one of the following statements for the best solution to the problem above: a. We should install bigger screens behind the cashiers' desks in order to show stock market data, a soap opera and a sports channel at the same time, as we know from our research that most of our customers are businesspeople, housewives or sports lovers. The correct answer is D. a. Active time does not necessarily mean watching TV.
3. Many animals do not need sunlight to live. Several species of fish were found on such depths as 10 kilometers and lower. These animals live under extreme pressure, in total darkness and without oxygen. Scientists predict that more specimen that never see sunlight will be found on the floors of the oceans within the next five years. The statements above, if true, best support with of the following conclusions? a. Planets such as Mars may have life organisms below the surface of the planet or in its frozen oceans. The correct answer is A. a. Having so many organisms that live in extreme environments here on Earth is a possible indicator of life forms on other planets, such as Mars (note that the discussion is about planets such as Mars, not Mars only, so the theme of this statement is life organisms on other planets in general).
4. No Belts Association claims that it is sole responsibility of each driver to use or not use seat-belts. The Association's goal is to change legislature to enable drivers drive without having to use a seat-belt. The first step is to allow some drivers drive without a fastened seat-belt. As the research indicates, most mothers usually drive within 20 miles from home - to supermarkets, schools and churches. Taking care of the seat-belts oftentimes makes mothers nervous, as they are often running late. Therefore, they claim, mothers driving within 20 miles from home should be allowed to drive without fastening their seat-belt. Which of the following, if true, should enable mothers drive without their seat-belts on? a. It is important that mothers driving on errands close to home stay as calm as possible, to drive safer. They are usually nervous, as they oftentimes run late, so they should be allowed not to use their seat-belts, but their passengers, especially children, must nonetheless wear seat-belts. The correct answer here is E. One important clue to get from the passage here is that No Belts Association is looking for a category of people whom to free from having to use seat belts with the purpose of changing the legislature (in the future) to allow all drivers judge on whether they need to wear their seat belts or not. The reader must pick a statement that puts mothers into the safest possible category. a. This one is tricky, as it mentions other passengers besides mother drivers. Nevertheless, although wearing seat belts makes mothers nervous, there are multiple other reasons for being nervous. To stay on the safe side and not get nervous about seat belts, get used to wearing them at all times - is the main reason why this explanation can be rejected as the main reason for allowing mothers not use seat belts.
5. Football is not a very popular sport in the U.S. In order to make more people like the game and watch it on TV, therefore brining in more money on commercial ads, football association proposed several changes to be made, in order to make the game more active and attractive. One of the suggestions is to grow grass on the football fields that would be water resistant on the surface. This will make the game run smoother, as oftentimes football players slide on wet grass and therefore lose the ball. Which of the following is a better suggestion, the one that will make the game more financially attractive to football clubs and investors in the U.S. and other parts of the world? a. Building stadiums with roofs that cover 100% of the stadium is considerably cheaper than using water resistant grass in U.S. The correct answer is D. a. mentions a cheaper way, but does it solve the problem? we do not have all the information to properly conclude this one is the best option.
6. In most accidents involving bicycle riders, they get seriously damaged. Therefore, bicycle riders face serious danger on roads with other traffic. Even though bicycle lanes are widely introduced and bicycle riders have to know and follow general traffic rules, it is highly unsafe to drive a bicycle. To avoid high risks of driving a bicycle on the road bicyclist should be prohibited from driving on the roads. Bicyclist oftentimes are in a position to cause harm to pedestrians, therefore for the reasons of pedestrian safety, bicycle riders should also not drive in pedestrian walks. Which is the best and most feasible solution to the problem above that can help solve the problem with bicycle riders and the dangers they face and can cause to others? a. Bicycle lanes should be rebuilt into special roads for bicyclists. These roads should be as separate from the general traffic as the pedestrian walks and should have special privileges and rights. The new bicycle roads should in no way get in contact with either pedestrian walks or roads for general traffic. The correct answer is C. The question asks for the best and most feasible solution. In order to avoid dangers connected to driving a bicycle in town, it is best to prohibit it and shift it to other areas, in order not to completely rid bicycle lovers of the right for their passion. a. The best solution but not feasible.
7. The government of country C faces three problems: d, f, and j. Problem j can be solved only by eliminating problem d but before problem f is taken care of. The government of country L has two major problems: o and w. Problem o is the direct result of the problem f in country C, while problem w causes problem d in country C. Which of the following help of an international organization G best helps to resolve the maximum number of problems in both county C and L? a. The international organization G can provide all necessary funding to help country C fight problem j and f, as well as loan country L it's knowledgebase on how to fight w and o.
The most correct answer is E. a. This option leaves problem d in country C, although without any consequence.
8. Most fish in the Red Sea eat corals as a part of the everyday diet. If fish does not consume the minimum amount of corals each day, the variety of colorful fish would decrease drastically, which harms the natural balance in the Red Sea's fauna. Which of the following conclusions matches the statements above the most? a. Even though it is important to keep as many kinds of fish prosperous, people would never be able to revert the decreasing amount of corals in the Red Sea.
The correct answer is B. a. The question stem has no information about the amount of corals - whether it is increasing or decreasing. It is also out of scope.
9. Mayor of town T decided to lower the sales tax in order to boost the sales volume and therefore increase the budget by eventually receiving more sales tax as the result of the increased sales volume. The mayor wants to follow the example of town J, where such an experiment helped increase the budget twice in a three year term. Which of the following statements is the best proof that the opponents to the mayor's proposal can use in order to persuade the population of town T not to support this decision? a. Town J is located very close to the borders of other three states, which causes residents of other states to shop in town J, as the sales taxes in those other states are higher than in this state. Town T is located far from any state border.
The correct answer is A. a. Provides a reasonable explanation of why the experiment worked in town J and why it would not work in town T.
10. Lowering entry barriers that foreign investors face in entering a country's economy produces more interest and causes investments inflow. The inflow of investments causes the country's economy to boost. Boost of the economy creates many new jobs, which enables people to ask for bigger salaries. _____________________, would lead to the development of a strong basis for a stable economic situation in the country. Which of the following is the best piece of evidence that would work in the logic above? a. Bigger salaries mean more taxes paid to the government.
The correct answer is D. a. We do not have information as to whether bigger salaries are granted or not. If only a small percentage of the requests to increase salaries is satisfied, there would not be a substantial increase in taxes.
11. Hospital Z has a high percentage of followup surgeries. Those are surgeries that have to be done after the first surgery is not successful. In most cases this happens when patients are willing to be treated in this hospital, which is considerably cheaper compared to others in the region. Followup surgeries are done at the expense of hospital Z and reduce its income drastically. Which of the following is the best solution to reduce the number of the followup surgeries? a. Hospital Z has to ensure that all its patients know the risks compared to the more expensive options available |