Whenever a GMAT question asks for something that can be "properly inferred" from a critical reasoning argument, remember that your job is to fully understand the argument presented and then look for the answer choice that is guaranteed by the information presented. Remember, the information doesn't have to be interesting - it just needs to be something that must be true given the information presented.

In this case, you are told there's no correlation between the percentage of an individual's income spent on healthcare and the quality of healthcare they receive. (Further, if it did exist, the argument states that either individuals who spend a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would get better or worse quality of care.)

The only real information that you have here is the fact that increased (or decreased) spending on health insurance as a percentage of income does not "necessarily indicate quality of care." You don't have any information on absolute amounts spent on health insurance or about the health insurance itself. From this, you can eliminate "If individuals receiving free or reduced cost health insurance from the government were removed from the sample, there would be a strong correlation between cost and quality of care.", which deals with eliminating a particular type of health insurance from the sample and "Looking at the dollar amount spent on health insurance rather than the percentage would show a correlation between amount of money spent and quality of care.", which deals with absolute dollar amounts. Choice "It is probable that individuals who spend more on health insurance in fact get a lower quality of care than do those who spend less on health care." can also be eliminated since you are told that there is no correlation in either direction.

Between "Individuals who spend the greatest percentage of their income on health insurance never receive high quality of care from medical providers." and "Reducing an individual’s spending on health insurance as a percent of their income will not necessarily lead to lower quality of care.", choice "Individuals who spend the greatest percentage of their income on health insurance never receive high quality of care from medical providers." can be eliminated since there is just no way to prove that individuals who spend a large percentage of their income on health insurance never get quality care from medical providers - the entire point of the argument is that there is no correlation.

Choice "Reducing an individual’s spending on health insurance as a percent of their income will not necessarily lead to lower quality of care." must be correct. If there is no correlation between spending on health insurance as a percentage of income, then reducing spending on health insurance as a percent of income may or may not affect quality of care. The words here "will not necessarily lead to lower quality of care" are particularly important, since it links back to the argument that there is just no way to tell.

This is an inference question. The correct answer must be true. From the stimulus we know that the jury is not supposed to consider the fact that a defendant does not testify as evidence of guilt or innocence. And yet, jurors do take the refusal to testify as evidence of guilt. This means that choice "The fact that a defendant refuses to testify is sometimes unfairly considered by a jury as evidence of guilt." must be true, the fact that a defendant refuses to testify is unfairly seen by some jurors as evidence of guilt.

Choice "Most defendants who refuse to testify in their trials are, in fact, guilty." could be false, there is no indication of whether those who refuse to testify are guilty. Choice "The rules should be modified to require defendants to testify regardless of their guilt or innocence." indicates what “should” happen. This is a recommendation and is not something that must be true, even if it does seem logical. Choice "A defendant would sometimes be better served by testifying at trial rather than by choosing not to testify." could be true, a defendant might be better served by testifying, but it could be false as well. This is a prediction and it is very difficult for a prediction to be must be true. Choice "Some jurors refuse to take a defendant’s refusal to testify into consideration when deciding guilt or innocence." seems very plausible. Jurors are not supposed to take a defendant’s not testifying into account. It is logical to think that at least some jurors would follow this rule. However, it is not clear that this is the case. This does not reach the standard of must be true. The stimulus still allows the possibility that every juror takes the fact of not testifying into account.

This inference question makes you choose between a guaranteed (and almost boring) answer choice and answer choices that tend to over-generalize from the information given in the prompt. As with any inference question, it is important to pay careful attention to word play within the answers. In this case, it forces you to differentiate between two groups: ‘Top 50’ business schools in general and the subset of ‘Top 50’ business schools discussed in the prompt.

For answer choice "Accepting over 30 percent of applicants can help a business school move into the 'Top 50'.", raising the acceptance rate has nothing to do with the quality of the school or its applicants. The argument doesn’t give any information about what it takes to become a top 50 School – eliminate "Accepting over 30 percent of applicants can help a business school move into the 'Top 50'.".

Although "Most students whose GMAT scores are below 650 tend to have undergraduate grade point averages under 3.4." is tempting, the argument does not make a connection between all students whose GMAT scores are below 650 and who have grade point averages under 3.4. While this connection might be true for the students admitted to the schools discussed, the argument doesn’t address GMAT takers in general, so this inference is not guaranteed.

Similarly, answer choice "'Top 50' business schools tend to accept students with undergraduate grade point averages under 3.4." over generalizes and tries to extrapolate general tendencies among all ‘Top 50’ business schools from the information given about one fourth of that group. Because there is no indication that you can extrapolate from the information given, "'Top 50' business schools tend to accept students with undergraduate grade point averages under 3.4." is not a proper inference.

Answer choice "Work experience is not the most important criterion for admission to a 'Top 50' business school." also makes the mistake of over-generalization. While some ‘Top 50’ schools admit students without much work experience, that does not mean that work experience isn’t the most important criterion for any ‘Top 50’ business school, as suggested in "Work experience is not the most important criterion for admission to a 'Top 50' business school.'.

Answer choice "It is possible for a business school whose accepted students have average GMAT scores under 650 to be 'Top 50'." is almost guaranteed by the argument. If admitted students at 25% of the ‘Top 50’ business schools tend to have scores around 650, it is possible that the average for those schools will be around 650. Since "It is possible for a business school whose accepted students have average GMAT scores under 650 to be 'Top 50'." only requires that it be possible, it is a proper inference and is the correct answer.

The argument states that there are two unintended results of spraying chemicals in the home. Chemicals kill spiders, which would normally kill other insects found in the home. Second, insects become resistant to the chemicals over the course of generations. The correct answer will solve (or at least mitigate) one of these two problems, thus increasing the effectiveness of the chemical sprays (the goal of the question). Remember that for any inference question that inferences must be guaranteed. This may mean that they are not interesting and may add information that seems almost identical to what is given in the argument.

Remember that it’s often to find what is wrong with an answer choice than finding what works about it. Answer choice "Using only sprays that are more chemically stable" doesn’t address anything to do with the spiders or insects becoming resistant, so it can be eliminated. Alternating the chemical spray used "Alternating the use of a variety of chemical sprays used" does address the insects becoming resistant. This will improve the effectiveness of the chemical sprays, so "Alternating the use of a variety of chemical sprays used" is the correct answer.

For completion, make sure that "Increasing the amount that is sprayed", "Spraying only a portion of the house at a time", and "Planting trees outside of the house to attract certain insects that typically are resistant to chemical sprays" can be eliminated. "Increasing the amount that is sprayed" can be eliminated because increasing the amount sprayed doesn’t address the problem of resistance and may make more spiders die. "Spraying only a portion of the house at a time" can be eliminated since, while spraying one portion of the house at a time might seem like it might address the issue of resistance, it doesn’t. Planting trees that house resistant insects "Planting trees outside of the house to attract certain insects that typically are resistant to chemical sprays" would be counterproductive.

This Inference problem forces you to deal with the provided statistics, which guarantee that choice B must be true. To prove that, you could use a variable for the number of refrigerators that Fretter sold to residents of Oakland County (let's call it x) or you can borrow a tool from your Word Problems / Quantitative toolkit and pick a number (such as 50) .

You know that most (so > 1/2) of the refrigerators that Fretter sold were to residents of Oakland County. So the number of refrigerators that Fretter sold in total must be less than 2x, or less than 100.

You also know that more than 1/2 of the refrigerators sold to residents of Oakland County were NOT from Fretter. So Fretter's x (or 50) refrigerators are less than half of Oakland County's refrigerator sales. Oakland County's sales then are > 2x, or > 100. This allows you to directly compare the two totals: The number of total Fretter sales is less than the number of total Oakland County sales. Choice "In 2015, more refrigerators were purchased by residents of Oakland County than were sold by Fretter Appliances." is therefore proven.

Among the incorrect answer choices:

With choice "At least one store in Oakland County sold more refrigerators in 2015 than Fretter Appliances did.", recognize that no one store had to sell more in Oakland County than Fretter in order for Fretter's sales to be less than 50% of the county's. Several smaller stores could add up to that >50% amount.

With choice "Residents of Oakland County purchased more refrigerators in 2015 than in any previous year.", there is just no information to draw this conclusion: Fretter's 2015 was its greatest ever, but you don't have any information about Oakland County's historical sales.

Choice "Fretter Appliances sold more refrigerators to residents of Oakland County in 2015 than it did in any previous year." can be eliminated by considering extreme cases when picking numbers. If this year Fretter sold 100 refrigerators overall (its best year ever) and 51 in Oakland County (more than half its total sales), you could still have Fretter selling 90 last year (consistent with 2015 as its highest ever sales) with all 90 of them coming from Oakland County (just a much higher percentage of its sales coming from Oakland County in a previous year).

And choice "At least some residents of Oakland County purchased refrigerators from stores not located within Oakland County in 2015." is a choice that seems likely to be true, but that has no proof anywhere in the stimulus. On Inference questions, if you can't find direct proof, the answer choice is not necessarily true and must be eliminated.

This question stem is asking you to form a conclusion based on the information given, so you must pick the one answer that is guaranteed. As is true for all inference style questions, you should use process of elimination by evaluating each potential conclusion.

For "Most people eating vitamin-fortified foods are consuming dangerous amounts of vitamin C.", you do know that “most consumers overestimate the amount of one serving for these foods, ingesting two to four times what is considered one serving by the manufacturer” so it is safe to say that most people get more than their daily intake as recommended by the NAS. However, to be dangerous the recommended amounts must be “greatly exceeded” and we have no idea if “two to four times” meets that threshold. As a result this is not a proper inference.

For "Manufacturers need to change the amount listed as one serving on the packaging for vitamin-fortified foods.", there is no proof given in the stimulus that manufacturers need to do anything. While it is true that many consumers overestimate the amount of one serving, this does not allow you to conclude that manufacturers need to make a change (maybe the consumers just need to get better at estimating!). This type of prescription is virtually impossible to prove in an inference style question.

For "Any person eating vitamin-fortified foods will receive the daily intake for vitamin C that is recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.", the word “any” makes this easy to eliminate. We know that many, but not necessarily all, vitamin fortified foods contain 100% of the recommended vitamin C and that “most” consumers overestimate a serving. However, this still leaves open the possibility that some people are eating vitamin-fortified foods that do not contain vitamin C or that they are not getting a full serving’s worth.

For "Some people eating vitamin-fortified foods exceed the daily intake for vitamin C that is recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.", you know with certainty that most consumers are eating 2-4 servings of vitamin-fortified foods containing vitamin C, which provides more than 100% of the recommended amount. Since you only need to prove one person has consumed more than a serving of these foods to be sure of this conclusion, it must be true and "Some people eating vitamin-fortified foods exceed the daily intake for vitamin C that is recommended by the National Academy of Sciences." is correct.

For "People should avoid taking supplemental vitamin C if they are eating vitamin-fortified foods.", this is a similar prescription to what you saw in "Manufacturers need to change the amount listed as one serving on the packaging for vitamin-fortified foods.". There might be many reasons why someone wants or needs to take a vitamin C supplement even if they are eating the vitamin-fortified foods. Maybe their doctor wants them to have lots of extra vitamin C or maybe they are eating the vitamin-fortified foods that do not contain 100% of the recommended amount. This is not a proper inference.

This Boldface problem rewards those who can adeptly deconstruct arguments and find conclusions. Here the main conclusion of the argument is "the shareholders' optimism may be ill-founded" - you know that this is a conclusion because it is adjacent to the word "since" (which gives a reason for the conclusion - remember, conclusions must pass the "why test" in which some other portion of the argument tries to explain why it is true). And you know that it's the main conclusion because it follows "however," a signal that the author has introduced an idea and then transitioned to her main point.

With this knowledge you're ready to attack the answer choices and pick apart the subtle difference between popular choices. The first bolded portion is evidence that is used to support a conclusion (just not the main conclusion) - it's a reason that some shareholders believe that they do not have be be worried about the company's stock price.

The second bolded portion is evidence for the main conclusion - it's the reason that the shareholders' optimism may be unfounded.When you attack the answer choices, note that "The first is evidence that supports a conclusion; the second is that conclusion." and "The first is a premise that is accepted as true; the second is a conclusion that is contrary to the premise." each clearly mischaracterize the second bolded portion as a conclusion when in fact it is a premise.

Among the other choices, recognize that the goal of the argument - as evidenced by the conclusion - is to show that the shareholders' optimism is misplaced, NOT to clarify the initial fact. Again, this goes back to isolating and fixating on the conclusion. This is why choice "The first describes evidence that supports a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support." is correct: it properly notes the role of the second bolded portion, to support the conclusion that the optimism is unfounded (which, conceptually, is the same thing as questioning the shareholders' logic). Choices "The first describes the circumstance that the argument seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish." and "The first is a premise that is accepted as true; the second seeks to clarify the original premise." are each tempting, but each suggests that the purpose of the argument is to clarify the fact in the first sentence, when in fact the conclusion is clear in its intention to question the logic of the shareholders.

For any boldfaced question, it is essential that you first understand the complete argument. In this stimulus, it is stated that some economists believe that the enormous debt is the major impediment to job growth. As a result, these economists believe that spending should be cut immediately to reduce the debt. The evidence they give for their argument is that current debt levels are 96% of GDP and when total debt levels exceed 90% of domestic GDP, economic growth falls significantly causing job losses and overall economic malaise. The author of this argument agrees that reducing debt is essential but believes that an immediate reduction of spending would be problematic because the economy is too fragile. His recommendation and conclusion is that spending levels should be left constant in the short term and revenues increased with more taxes. Then, after the economy has recovered, spending should indeed be reduced. In summary, the author agrees with the economists that the major impediment to job growth is the high debt level but disagrees with their short term plan because the economists have not considered the fragile state of the economy. With that understanding of the argument, you must then attack each answer choice to see how the boldfaced sections are described:

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The author does not believe that first boldfaced portion is incorrect but rather believes it is correct. He disagrees with their assertion that “spending should be cut immediately” but agrees with this boldfaced portion. While the second boldface portion is described correctly, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is incorrect because of the description of the first boldfaced portion.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." This answer choice also incorrectly describes the first boldfaced portion. While the second does support the author’s conclusion, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." contains the same error as "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." with the first boldfaced portion.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author indeed believes is correct. The second boldfaced portion is the essential premise for that opinion so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is correct.

"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." In this choice, it is correct to say for the first boldfaced portion that the author’s conclusion is based on the opinion that the major impediment to job growth in the U.S. is the enormous national debt. However, the second boldfaced portion does not contradict the author’s conclusion but rather supports it so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." is incorrect

"The first boldfaced portion is the author’s conclusion; the second boldfaced portion is support for that conclusion." The first boldfaced portion is not the author’s conclusion but rather the opinion of several other economists. The author’s conclusion is given in the last two sentences that are not boldfaced.

As you deconstruct the argument in this Boldface question, recognize first that the first bolded sentence is a premise, stated as a fact. Further, the beginning of the next sentence states "with that trend...," establishing that the argument will build from that fact. From here you can eliminate choices "The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence." and "The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false." (each of which says that the first portion is a conclusion). You can also be very skeptical of choice "The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.": even though it correctly says that the first portion is a premise, note that it goes on to say that the argument proves that premise false. As you will see from the rest of the paragraph, the argument is concerned with attacking a conclusion drawn from that premise, but never tries to disprove the fact itself. For this reason, "The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false." is also incorrect.

As you look at the second bolded portion, note that the phrase "there has been debate as to whether we can conclude" is also direct cause for eliminating "The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.": the second bolded portion is not the conclusion itself, but rather the introduction of the conclusion. You should see that this language matches choice "The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole." perfectly, so choice "The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole." is correct.

Similarly "The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence." is incorrect, as the second bolded portion introduces a conclusion that could be drawn based on the first premise: it does not, as "The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence." says "undermine that evidence." To the contrary, it builds upon it.

Note that the conclusion of this argument is the phrase "the answer is no," which comes right next to the explanation for that conclusion, "since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles..." This allows you to eliminate choice "The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.", as the evidence for the argument's conclusion is everything beginning with "since," not the second bolded portion. Choice "The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole." is correct.

As you assess the argument and scan the answer choices, it should become clear that you will need to determine the dean's conclusion. A few things are important in finding that: 1) note the word "but" to begin the second sentence. Transition language like that often signifies that the author is transitioning between contextual information and her main point, so you should pay even closer attention past "but" to find the conclusion there. 2) Remember the "why test" - in order to be a conclusion, a statement must be backed up with a reason "why" it's true somewhere else in the argument.

Note that the non-bolded initial clause of that sentence "cutting the marketing budget would be a terrible idea" does have a reason why: because if you did that, students wouldn't know about these great programs. The bolded portion does not have a reason why: "our unique programs cannot attract students if we do not properly market them" is given as a fact without the rest of the argument explaining why.

From that, you should see that the second bolded portion exists to support the author's conclusion. This will narrow you down to choices "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion." and "The first is a conclusion that the dean supports; the second is evidence for that conclusion.".

From there, play the answers against each other. "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion." says that the second portion is used to support the dean's conclusion, while "The first is a conclusion that the dean supports; the second is evidence for that conclusion." says that it's evidence for "that conclusion," meaning the first bolded portion. "our unique programs cannot attract students if we do not properly market them" does support the conclusion that cutting marketing would be a bad idea (choice "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion.") but it doesn't support the idea that "we should cut unnecessary costs" (choice "The first is a conclusion that the dean supports; the second is evidence for that conclusion."). So the correct answer is "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion.".